Philip Prindeville wrote: > There is an RFC that defines what a URL looks like. A bare domain > doesn't cut it. > > You want to forbid bare domains in email? Go ahead. You can forbid > anything you like.
I don't, and I doubt Matt wants to either. > But don't call it a test for URL's, since it's clearly not. FWIW, you're the only one who's been calling it a URL. The SA headers say it's a URI, which isn't accurate either, unless of course you consider SURBL to be a Schemeless URI Realtime Blocklist. >> Besides, when this "braindeath" is more the norm than the exception, >> it's a de facto standard. Particularly in the absence of any rules >> against it. > > Yeah, I'll talk to the Outlook folks, and file a bug against > Thunderbird... (I think the latter only does it to be compatible with > the former...) Yeah, good luck with that. Do you really have an issue with SA, or is it just that you're pissed off that somebody rejected spam sent to their abuse account and you're taking your frustration out on how SA detected that spam? Daryl
