Logs vs. headers

[Julian Field]

At 17:02 26/04/2004, you wrote:
>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.

Fair enough. I will implement some checking of the header names.
--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

-------------------------- 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