>Charles M. Hannum writes:
>> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ...
>>
>> This seems very wrong. The Delivered-To: address here isn't even
>> correct; it should be something the actually exists -- either
>> `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' or `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
>
> Don't think of Delivered-To: as an address. Think of it as a unique
> magic cookie derived from email delivery path. You can always
> reconstruct the address if you know something about the delivery path,
> and sometimes you may indeed have to.
I don't need to be taught the religion, thanks. I'm already well
aware of it. And I don't buy it in this case. What if
`[EMAIL PROTECTED]' *was* a valid, different
address? It could falsely detect loops. Maybe that wouldn't make
sense in this particular case, but I'm sure you can construct a more
palatable case with little effort.
Also, that doesn't resolve my VERP problem.
