Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!chinet!les From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Crypt() in Elm - This may be a problem! Message-ID: <6071@chinet.chi.il.us> Date: 22 Jul 88 18:49:21 GMT Article-I.D.: chinet.6071 References: <470@altnet.ALTOS.COM> <278@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG> <485@altnet.ALTOS.COM> <10291@ncc.Nexus.CA> <1095@luth.luth.se> <5135@watcgl.w 22 Jul 88 18:49:21 GMT Reply-To: les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix Lines: 17 In article <1151@luth.luth.se> Sven-Ove Westberg writes: >||Address parsing is NOT a matter for the UA either. >|I beg to differ; how does Elm know who to reply to if it can't parse >|addresses? >It understands the structure of the header, thats all a UA has to know. >Then it send it all to the TA. This assumes that the UA is passed something reasonable in the header (i.e. a FROM: line in a format that the TA will understand), and precludes the possibility of the UA being able to warn the user when an impossible address is specified. The former is often not the case (uucp mailers do not require any headers). The latter should be optional for cases where the TA does not re-route. Les Mikesell