-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > List Mail User wrote: > > Jeff, > > > > RFC 1630 make pretty clear that a email address in either a "mailto:"; > > or "cid:"; clause *is* a URI. It does not address whether a bare email > > address > > would count (it seems that it doesn't fit the RFC definition, but does fit > > some other I found by Goggle). > > > > I could be convinced either way from a bare address (as it stand now, > > maybe someone else has something to add). But a "mailto:"; "mail:" or "cid:"; > > clause should (in my opinion) be looked up by the URI rules - they are URI, > > not URL rules (though URLs are clearly the most common from of URIs). > > > > I was surprised to see that from the RFC, even "Msg-Id:" clauses > > are URIs. > > > > Paul Shupak > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I'd agree with Paul, what's the difference between doing the lookup of > the domain listed in a mailto: link and a http: link -- both of which > are often found in someone's signature? > > Eliminating the mailto: domain lookup could lead to spam such as "email > us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for all the junk you don't really want". However, it's an impedance mismatch between what's going into the backends (the SBL and SURBL uribls) and what we're matching on the other end. At least for SBL, it's definitely problematic, since a SBL escalation (of mail relays) will blocklist mail that *mentions* that domain! - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCOgPeMJF5cimLx9ARAsyZAJ9ZiuOa2Lo6iK8Xflh6G+FdddUUcACeIbrA YxiICu7MFD6uG8eKB9YK5tw= =BHlZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
