Re: Email Mangling

2004-03-05 Thread Gregory Borota
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-03/msg00245.html http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2004-03&msgid=Pine.CYG.4.58.0403041424140.812%40lap On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:12:29AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >On Fri, 5 Mar 200

Re: Email Mangling

2004-03-05 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:12:29AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Gregory Borota wrote: > >>Looking at the headers for a message I sent recently (id 89248) I see > >>that my email address was not mutilated in the Received: fie

Re: Email Mangling

2004-03-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:12:29AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Gregory Borota wrote: >>Looking at the headers for a message I sent recently (id 89248) I see >>that my email address was not mutilated in the Received: field. If one >>uses SBC Yahoo's smtp server he has his e

Re: Email Mangling

2004-03-05 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Gregory Borota wrote: > Looking at the headers for a message I sent recently (id 89248) I see that > my email address was not mutilated in the Received: field. If one uses > SBC Yahoo's smtp server he has his email address as username. > > If this is a very isolated incident th

Email Mangling

2004-03-05 Thread Gregory Borota
Looking at the headers for a message I sent recently (id 89248) I see that my email address was not mutilated in the Received: field. If one uses SBC Yahoo's smtp server he has his email address as username. If this is a very isolated incident then maybe nobody should bother. If not maybe it shou