exim-users-bounces@??? wrote:
> As I understand it, addresses with trailing dots and other odd
> characters in the local part are not RFC valid - are they
> realistically used across the network?
>
> On that assumption, should the general local part validation of
> addresses accept those forms, be modified to reject them (which
> obviously *can* be done in ACLs), or modified to reject them with an
> override (like the helo characters one)?
>
> Modifications would be an incompatible change - working configurations
> could then be stopped working, which might be a good thing (unless you
> are the one caught out by it).
>
> Nigel.
> --
> [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
> [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
Well, rejecting such addresses hasn't caused any "false positive"
rejections here (that I know of).
Would it not be possible to do such rejections without loss of
compatibility by offering it as an "opt in", at least in the first
instance? (that is, you would have to set strict address checking on,
but the default is off)
regards
Richard
--
Richard Rogers
IT Development and Innovation Manager
Information Services, Staffordshire University
The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
