Re: fingering e-mail addresses

Article View: aus.net.mail

Article #58

#58

From: Tom Holub
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 00:00

9 lines
1199 bytes

In article <distler-0509991105430001@192.168.0.1>,
Jacques Distler <distler@golem.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
)
)It's true that the RFC does not *require* the 250 response to be accurate.
)But in my experience almost all mail servers do respond correctly.

Even if they don't, you can just try sending an actual mail.
Only an insane sysadmin would fail to bounce mail to invalid addresses.
 -Tom

Technical Details

Message-ID: <7qu737$q0d$1@shell3.ba.best.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References:

<37CB6A34.7178@cygnus.uwa.edu> <m37lm57ew4.fsf@ft193216227195.dep.no> <37D27ACE.B9548F91@e-softinc.com> <distler-0509991105430001@192.168.0.1>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10952f,23199f1e3f0d22e7
X-Google-Attributes: gid10952f,public
X-Google-Thread: 1090e7,37552a33cbddf452
X-Google-Attributes: gid1090e7,public
X-Google-Thread: 108c83,23199f1e3f0d22e7
X-Google-Attributes: gid108c83,public
From: doosh@best.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: fingering e-mail addresses
Date: 1999/09/05
Message-ID: <7qu737$q0d$1@shell3.ba.best.com>
X-Deja-AN: 521361057
References: <37CB6A34.7178@cygnus.uwa.edu> <m37lm57ew4.fsf@ft193216227195.dep.no> <37D27ACE.B9548F91@e-softinc.com> <distler-0509991105430001@192.168.0.1>
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 936550315 211 doosh@206.184.139.134
Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc.  www.best.com
Newsgroups: aus.net.mail,aus.computers,comp.security.unix

Reply to Parent Message