Sheldon wrote: > I don't think so. It looks valid, because: > > 1) Unqualified localparts are legal, and > 2) Quoted strings in localparts are legal, and whitespace is legal > within them.
I agree James should be handling this as a quoted local part with no host or domain part. i.e. "nlt: Mail Administrator"@localhost What you say below I disagree with.. > I've just given up on implementing a strictly compliant syntactic > validator because it's so complex. I just leave it up to $other_mta > [1], now. I've looked at the C code used in $other_mta, and it's > hair-raising. :-) > Assuming you're smartrouting outbound mail through a more mature system, > I'd recommend leaving the decision up to that host for now. After all, > you're using James for extensibility and application integration, rather > than high performance delivery and mature spool management and auditing > features, right? It is not IMO our intention to create a dependant piece of software, nor should it be. James aims to be a fully functional MTA (and then some), we do strive to comply with all relevant rfcs, but as you say 822 & 2822 are the mother of all bitches, and seem to be comprised mainly of escapes allowing the perverse exceptions required to maintain historic compatibilities with mediaeval address formats. James doesn't rely on routing outbound mail though a more mature system, unless you consider JavaMail more mature (IMO *not*, just better funded) I'm quite sure that "power users" of James _will_ be gateing James with sendmail or some other worthy MTA, but James is equally at home as the primary MTA of SME systems. Finally, (rant nearly over!) in this particular case an unqualified local part shouldn't really have been used as the MAIL FROM address by an MTA with an ounce of brain, as James (or $other_mta) should have rejected it based upon it not being a valid local user, never mind any other considerations. d.
