Well said Robert.
On Sep 2, 2015 22:40, "Robert Elz" <kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)oz(_dot_)au> wrote:
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:10:41 -0400
From: Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<20150902151041(_dot_)E981115AFC(_at_)pb-smtp0(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
| but any MUA that doesn't interpret it is ALSO not RFC-compliant.
I just ran a couple of tests, and couldn't find anything non-compliant
about
nmh - perhaps not as user friendly as we may like, but definitely
compliant.
As best I can see, nmh doesn't object to receiving, nor does it refuse to
display, messages with those "obs-phrase" type dots in them. That is,
it interprets those messages just fine.
What it does do (and what sparked the original query/complaint) was to
refuse to send to an address that isn't properly conformant. That's
also perfectly OK.
That's where the possible lack of user friendliness comes in - for an
address like your (invented)
Dr. Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
"repl" would produce
To: "Dr. Ken Hornstein" <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
which is compliant, and meets typical user expectations.
On the other hand, if your From: field contained
Ken.Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
then repl generates the "repl: bad addresses: ..." stuff, as reported,
and doesn't fill in the To field at all.
That's legal - nothing in the RFCs says what you have to do with bogus
address when they're received, but not as friendly as perhaps we'd prefer -
if the previous case can get quoted, then this one perhaps could as well.
What we mustn't ever do though is
To: Ken.Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
kre
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers