Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About harsh

  • Rank
  1. To be painfully correct, the protocol for e-mail is defined by RFC 822 (which is deferred to by the mailto protocol, RFC 2368). Interestingly, it specifies that the mailbox case be preserved, but it does not specify that the domain case be preserved. As you stated, the case is folded to facilitate delivery. In any event, that was my issue and it appears that somewhere on the SpamCop side, the address is being handled in a manner at odds with RFC 822 and that was apparently what was munching my reply. So, assuming I want to do battle with this again, how do I reinitiate the process?
  2. I can understand being uppity about the non-address portions, but not the e-mail address proper. Suffice it to say that somewhere downstream, the activity that you despise so has indeed happened and apparently on the spamcop side. It should have been obvious from my p.s. that it isn't necessary to disparage my choice of clients and servers as the problem was with the To:l address (which Eudora doesn't mung), not the content of the forward. To be certain, Eudora's conversion of messages to HTML is frustrating for the spam reporting interface, but it doesn't seem to have a damaging effect on the content of the forward. Your suggestion about the courtesy copy is an excellent one and I will try it on the next go-around. Lee Bosch
  3. I have a slightly different issue that searching the forum hasn't turned up: When I respond to the mailhosts challenge e-mail, there is much grousing about the fact that the recipient address hash has been converted to lower case at some point. As this is not an unreasonable thing to do, is is possible that the hashes be done in lower case only so as not to cause this confusion??? Lee Bosch ps: I tested my SMTP server (and, coincidently, Eudora) and they do not appear to be doing the low casing of the e-mail address that got my responses rejected.