On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, m.hampson wrote:
> <<user@???>>
There's an item on my work list containing "provide a crutch for broken
sendmails by removing extraneous <>". I will try to do something about
it for the next release if I can. I don't think it's much work.
> > user@[155.198....]
>
> Oh bugger, and it was looking so good. We can probably work around the
> bracket thing but we will always have to support @[] from the Internet.
Sigh. I suppose I might have to do something about this one as well. We
have never supported this form of addressing, not for the last 5 years,
and nobody has yet complained! I suppose Exim ought to have the ability
to do it, crazy though it is in today's Internet.
On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, David Carter wrote:
> Did we decide that the domain literate form (@[]) could be handled using
> the rewrite rules? I can't remember.
No it can't, because the address will be rejected as syntactically
incorrect before any attempt at rewriting is made.
--
Philip Hazel University Computing Service,
ph10@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
P.Hazel@??? England. Phone: +44 1223 334714
