* Roberto C. Sanchez:
> Then, I guess the relevant question has to do with whether or not
> adduser (and the rest of the components that touch or use the username)
> are RFC2822 compliant.
Most certainly they are not. Embedded NUL characters are allowed in
local-parts.
I don't think this is a p
Quoting Marc Haber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> After having this discussed here, I am now inclined to allow @ in user
> names if --force-badname was given or NAME_REGEX was configured
> appropriately.
>
> I'll make that change thursday evening unless some new arguments were
> shown here.
>
I've jus
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 00:45:08 +0100, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm not sure any of the suspicions have any bearing on question #2,
>however: should adduser be allowed to add usernames of this format, when
>told to with suitable --force flags?
After having this discussed here, I am now
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:46:08 +0200, "Izak Burger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 10/7/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there any potential breakage to allow adduser --force-badname to
>> create accounts with @ in user names?
>
>The only thing that immediately comes to mind is that of
This one time, at band camp, Roberto C. Sanchez said:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 12:39:39PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 01:34:35PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > > I'm thinking of this slightly obscure service called email. It might
> > > possibly be affected by suc
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 02:39:03PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
> Well, I'm surprised to say the least. I have some virtual domains on a
> server. So I did `mail "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@the.real.host` and sent a
> test message. Surprisingly, to me anyway, I got this on the local host:
>
> Oc
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 08:05:55PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote:
>
> i know of servers which create system accounts for email users (pop3
> and imap) with the complete email address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as username.
>
> so especially for email addresses, the @ in system accounts might be
> interestin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On 10/7/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there any potential breakage to allow adduser --force-badname to
>> create accounts with @ in user names?
>
>The only thing that immediately comes to mind is that of a MTA that
>has to deliver mail fo
On 07/10/2006 Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 06:32:31PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > in #389160, the bug submitter suggests allowing @ in user names, which
> > adduser currently does not even allow when called with
> > --for
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 12:39:39PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 01:34:35PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > I'm thinking of this slightly obscure service called email. It might
> > possibly be affected by such brain damage. Why can't the bug submitter
> > make to with
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 01:34:35PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> I'm thinking of this slightly obscure service called email. It might
> possibly be affected by such brain damage. Why can't the bug submitter
> make to with +, ., and other such characters?
According to my very brief examinati
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 06:32:31PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in #389160, the bug submitter suggests allowing @ in user names, which
> adduser currently does not even allow when called with
> --force-badname.
>
> Is there any potential breakage to allow addus
On 10/7/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there any potential breakage to allow adduser --force-badname to
create accounts with @ in user names?
The only thing that immediately comes to mind is that of a MTA that
has to deliver mail for this user. For example, when cron runs a job
Hi,
in #389160, the bug submitter suggests allowing @ in user names, which
adduser currently does not even allow when called with
--force-badname.
Is there any potential breakage to allow adduser --force-badname to
create accounts with @ in user names?
Greetings
Marc
14 matches
Mail list logo
