On 21 March 2002, Theo Van Dinter said:
> What I'm arguing is: don't replace the regexp of INVALID_MSGID with one
> that isn't actually checking for invalid message-ids.
Right, understood. Makes sense to me.
> Adding a new test that looks for ".+@.+\..+" would be fine by me, since it's
> a new
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:58:35AM -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
> I think "message id with no dot after the @" is worth detecting, but
> with a low positive score -- that sort of thing occurs depressingly
> often in real email too.
What I'm arguing is: don't replace the regexp of INVALID_MSGID with on
On 20 March 2002, Theo Van Dinter said:
> But that is a valid Message-Id according to RFC 2822. Unless you really
> want to get into the RFC and do a regex check by the strict standards, all
> you can really check is that the Message-Id is of the form /^<.+@.+>$/.
> That can probably be made a li
On Wednesday 20 March 2002 06:45 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:09:24PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> > Currenlt, INVALID_MSGID doesn't catch message IDs like
> > <026b10d87e4c$8543d8d6$8ad36ae8@ihervr>, because it only requires that
> > there
>
> But that is a valid Messa
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:09:24PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> Currenlt, INVALID_MSGID doesn't catch message IDs like
> <026b10d87e4c$8543d8d6$8ad36ae8@ihervr>, because it only requires that there
But that is a valid Message-Id according to RFC 2822. Unless you really
want to get into the RFC
Currenlt, INVALID_MSGID doesn't catch message IDs like
<026b10d87e4c$8543d8d6$8ad36ae8@ihervr>, because it only requires that there
be something after the "@". I've changed it so that it requires something like
a normal host name after the "@" (with at least one "." in it). While I was at
it, I
