Logs vs. headers

[Spicer, Kevin]

David Lee wrote:
> But it is nevertheless unusual, isn't it?  Might it be unusual enough
> to warrant MS at least issuing a friendly warning-like (non-fatal)
> advisory diagnostic of some sort?  That the email administrator might
> wish to consider avoiding the "." in such MS-inserted headers? 
> (Hinting and helping folk towards the wise Internet code-of-conduct
> of being "conservative in what you send" etc.)

I think the issue is perception, people (especially non technical managers who 'trust' Symantec) are likely to see that it was a header added by MailScanner that caused the trouble and therefore blame MailScanner (unfairly IMO).  I think coding a warning is probably a bit overkill (who to warn, how to warn, is it worth not starting MS because of etc.).  Perhaps the simple expedient of running the headers past a substitute expression (such as s/\W/-/g) at the point they are read from the config would suffice?
The gentoo ebuild being worked on creates the org-name on install by using the dns domain with the periods replaced with hyphens.



BMRB International 
http://www.bmrb.co.uk
+44 (0)20 8566 5000
_________________________________________________________________
This message (and any attachment) is intended only for the 
recipient and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
material.  If you have received this in error, please contact the 
sender and delete this message immediately.  Disclosure, copying 
or other action taken in respect of this email or in 
reliance on it is prohibited.  BMRB International Limited 
accepts no liability in relation to any personal emails, or 
content of any email which does not directly relate to our 
business.

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
For further info about MailScanner, please see the Most Asked
Questions at    http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives
at    http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html