From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:04:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:03:57 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:9973 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:03:55 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <20010417222555.L805@mea-ext.zmailer.org> In-Reply-To: <20010417222555.L805@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <20010417190405.PTFU6564.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@mail.vger.kernel.org> To: Matti Aarnio Cc: Dave Zarzycki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Your response is requested Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:03:41 +0100 Message-ID: <11637.987548621@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org matti.aarnio@zmailer.org said: > Actually not. Either your MTA, or your MUA did that. > I got: > From: J. I. > This particular detail -- when to add canonical domain to e.g. From: > address, and when not -- is implemented rather fuzzily usually.. I'm in the "if it arrives unqualified by SMTP from !localhost, reject it" camp. I certainly can't think of a single case where it's appropriate to accept it _and_ qualify it with the local domain in that case. -- dwmw2