On 11 Nov 2002 at 2:11, Jason R. Mastaler wrote: > ``X-Primary-Address'' ?
I like that one too. Not sure if I prefer Primary or Preferred, but these are my favorites so far. > I think this is a pretty good heuristic to limit potential abuse. Thanks. > We should choose a good default value though, as most users probably > won't bother changing it. Agreed. > I'd vote for #4 in your example: > > To be considered matching, the last two parts of address domains > must match. i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] > would match. > > I think this is flexible enough to cover most users while still greatly > limiting potential abuse. I agree. It may seem "wide open", but I think the potential for abuse is low, especially if users have the option of "tightening" their control by choosing a new level. #4 is a good default by me. > Apropos, TMDA currently replies to the envelope sender address (i.e, > Return-Path), not Reply-To, but perhaps that's what you meant. <slaps head> Sorry. Don't have this all straight yet. BTW, is the envelope sender shown anywhere? Or would I have to look in my /var/logs/mail/current to try and figure out what was used? Gre7g. ================================================================= Gre7g Luterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.templeofluna.com/ Stay informed: http://www.templeofluna.com/keeper/mailinglist.htm If it weren't for sex, none of us would be here. And of course, by 'here' I mean 'on the internet'. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
