spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Feedback on blacklist rule I plan to write
Date Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:07:16 GMT
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:13:40 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

> >On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:44:19 -0400
> >David F. Skoll wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:06:35 -0500
> >> Adam Moffett <adamlists@plexicomm.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm reasonably sure that user@ip makes a valid address, but even
> >> > if it is I don't think I've ever observed it anywhere.
> >>
> >> My reading of RFC5321 seems to indicate that "user@1.2.3.4" is NOT
> >> a valid address.  It should instead be written as "user@[1.2.3.4]"
> 
> On 30.10.13 17:53, RW wrote:
> >If you are referring to 4.1.3. I would say it's defining a routing
> >mechanism rather than limiting what a valid address is.
> 
> 4.1.2 defines it as part of mail address:
> 
>     address-literal  = "[" ( IPv4-address-literal /
>                      IPv6-address-literal /
>                      General-address-literal ) "]"
> 
>     Mailbox        = Local-part "@" ( Domain / address-literal )

But does anything actually say that 1.2.3.4 can't be treated as a
hostname. Isn't the point of the [] to be a hint to the server that it
can treat the contents as an IP address and deliver to that address. I
don't see anything obviously wrong with something like no-reply@1.2.3.4



Mime
View raw message