I think that I would just use Z-
just my $.02.
--Curtis
On 12/7/2016 2:19 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Eric Henson wrote:
Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will have
you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filte
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/12/06/are-you-human-or-a-bot-googles-invisible-recaptcha-will-decide/
This caught my eye with the recent Spamhaus 'list-bombing' implications to
marketers who's sign up pages were unprotected. Depending on the
intricacies of how this may work once releases, it
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Eric Henson wrote:
> Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will
> have you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filters.
>
> :-)
Damn the world is complicated. All I was thinking of was Pokémon.
-Jim P.
Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will have
you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filters.
:-)
Eric Henson
Server Team Manager
PFS
p: 972.881.2900 x 3104
m: 972.948.3424
www.pfsweb.com
-Original Message-
From: mailop [mai
>> Really, if you need to invent a header, just invent one and don't
>> pretend that anyone told you to use a X- name.
>
>So you can choose any name you want as long as it doesn't start with
>X- ? :-)I'm going to start naming headers XY- just because it's
>allowed by RFCs.
Hey, this is the I
On Dec 7, 2016 9:27 AM, "Jim Popovitch" wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use
>>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name"
>>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use
>>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name"
>>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those
>>protocols.
>>
>
>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use
>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name"
>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those
>protocols.
>
>So, X headers are still the way to go it seems for SMTP..
On 16-12-07 07:58 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
/me is going to go with Envelope-To, as it's going to be the easiest to
explain to users "this is from the envelope at SMTP delivery time, not the To:
or Cc: or anywhere else".
FWIW, we chose the closely related X-Envelope-To: for this function many year
Legitimate eXtension headers as X- are easily filtered as "this is something
you shouldn't pay attention to because it's not part of any standard". Take
away the X- and you go back to the 'ok what is legitimate and what is not'
situation...
Oh, that's easy. They're all legitimate. If you're
John Levine wrote:
In article <584815fc.40...@sorbs.net> you write:
David Hofstee wrote:
The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...
If you read the document, you'd know that it said that if people actually
use an
> /me is going to go with Envelope-To, as it's going to be the easiest to
> explain to users "this is from the envelope at SMTP delivery time, not the To:
> or Cc: or anywhere else".
FWIW, we chose the closely related X-Envelope-To: for this function many years
ago. (At the time best practice was
> On Dec 6, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients for a
> message (for good reason, especially when it comes to Bccs) but there are
> times when it's useful.
>
> Does anyone know of a system that does that? I'm stashing
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:10:49 +0100, Gilles Chehade via mailop
wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +1000, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> David Hofstee wrote:
>> > The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
>> >
>> Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...
In article <584815fc.40...@sorbs.net> you write:
>David Hofstee wrote:
>> The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
>>
>Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...
If you read the document, you'd know that it said that if people actually
use an X- header it's t
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +1000, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> David Hofstee wrote:
> > The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
> >
> Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...
>
> :/
>
wow, missed that one :-/
--
Gilles Chehade
https://www.pool
David Hofstee wrote:
The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...
:/
Michelle
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listin
John Levine wrote:
>
> Oh, and some MTAs put them in Delivered-To: lines at the top of the
> message, after the Return-Path:.
Or Envelope-To:
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-message_processing.html#SECID225
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr
The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
Met vriendelijke groet,
David Hofstee
Deliverability Management
MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP)
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "John Levine"
Aan: mailop@mailop.org
Cc: st...@blighty.com
Verzonden: Woensdag 7 de
19 matches
Mail list logo