On Thursday, March 17, 2005, 2:25:34 PM, Justin Mason wrote: > 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.
Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I was asking if there was an explicit mailto: in the source message. Turns out there wasn't and the mail address was bare. >> 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". In principle I agree that a URI handler should deal with all possible URI types. However... > 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! Yes, in which case what we have in URIDNSBL are actually dealing with only web and ftp as opposed to more complete URI handling. As Justin notes that is a proper match for what are in SBL and SURBLs. It also corresponds well to URIs that appear in spam. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
