There's nothing technically wrong with changing the quoting prefix, however I'd venture a guess that a lot more software expect ">Return-Path:" then the number of broken software written by Microsoft (as hard as this may be to believe).
In short: more stuff is likely to break than would get fixed.
Is quoting extra "Return-paths" with ">" defined somewhere? (e.g. rfc?) I'd thought you decided to quote extra "return-path"s to make it unambiguous which one was the real return-path, to prevent looping, etc., as a boundary case.
Quoting the extra headers seems reasonable; using '>' if it's outside of RFC spec doesn't. If there's precedence for using '>' in quoting headers (as opposed to "X-") and it's RFC defined, then I have something to go back to my client with and have them argue with GroupWise. If '>' escaping in headers isn't RFC-compliant, not only do we look bad, but Courier isn't compatible with Novell Groupwise and it should be fixed.
best, Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
