[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This concept was discussed before. It was noted that even though it > was not valid SMTP, addresses without <> were accepted because that's > what qmail-smtpd did. > > My only worry with making it stricter is whether or not any major > MTAs do not use <>, because we'd be dropping a lot of otherwise > legitimate email, which would be unacceptable to our clients.
Sounds like this should be a configurable option, with default behaviour to accept addresses without <>. R.
