October 15 2018 11:19 AM, "Kris Deugau" <kdeu...@vianet.ca> wrote: > Laura Smith wrote: > >> Honestly, you are most likely wasting your time on that point because all >> that you are likely to >> get back is a page of waffle saying "blah blah blah ... security reasons... >> blah blah blah" >>> I know this because a sysadmin ex-colleague was having problems creating >>> accounts with a FinCo >> using delimiters (e.g. nam...@example.com). FinCo's filters were rejecting >> this because it was >> "invalid". >>> Said individual wrote a carefully worded long letter to C-suite execs at >>> FinCo, also taking the >> time to attach copies of RFCs referred to in the letter so they would not >> have to look them up. >>> A couple of weeks later, a reply arrived in the post ... "blah blah blah >>> ... security reasons... >> blah blah blah... we know better... blah blah blah" >>> So the moral of this story is, unless you have friends working for FinCo, >>> don't bother trying to >> engage them on how they could improve client service by fixing their IT >> infrastructure. They are >> unlikely to listen. > > When I come across a site that won't accept a "foo+bar" username part for the > email, I roll my eyes > and use "foo_bar" instead. Thanks Wietse, for adding support for multiple > different characters in > recipient_delimiter! > > (I used to do this anyway when my personal server was running sendmail, but > there I had to add yet > another entry in virtusertable each time.) > > Of course, sometimes you don't find out that "foo+bar" isn't supported until > you notice curious > lack of email from the site... since their form doesn't validate as tightly > as their mail system. > Or sometimes the login page is the picky one. > > -kgd
Looks to me like something that wants to be escaped. I'm thinking that if it's a scripting language trying to accept the connection, it might see the plus sign and try to do math on it. After all amavisd is written in Perl. --cjm
