On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:00:11PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> You can also just make one up, if you don't mind the bounce. example.com
> and example.net are even reserved by IANA, and will never (again) be
> valid domains for actual users.
>
Ah, I did not know that (RFC2606 [1]).
Thanks.
> > Okay, as a workaround this should work for me, too. Thanks. But I don't
> > want my mails regarded as possible spam for the to-field isn't correct.
>
> Please explain "to-field isn't correct" and site rfc's supporting your
> "supposition".
"undisclosed-decipients:;" is a valid content for the
Hi Ralf,
> I've updated mutt to 1.5.16 (etch backport) to checkout the new smtp transport
> feature. (Thanks for that!)
>
> The only problem I ran into is when remote smtp smarthosts do not support
> authentication at all (in intranets for example).
Is your mutt compiled against SASL?
> I ge
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 07:24:43AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> Please explain "to-field isn't correct" and site rfc's supporting your
> "supposition".
>
"Correct" was not quite the right word. What I wanted to say is, that
the to-field ideally should present the address of the recipient an n
* Benjamin Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [07-29-07 06:05]:
> Okay, as a workaround this should work for me, too. Thanks. But I don't
> want my mails regarded as possible spam for the to-field isn't correct.
Please explain "to-field isn't correct" and site rfc's supporting your
"supposition".
> Ma
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 09:40:50PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Benjamin Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-01-70 11:34]:
> > Okay, unfortunately there is some more problem: I only want to see all
> > of the recipients only their own address. Not like when bcc is used
> > and they will see th
