Subject: Re: Shame vs Engineering

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:34:11 -0700 (PDT)

Richard Clayton <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>you ought to consider reading the original emails (hence I've cc'd this
>to you as well)   Harald wrote  <abuse@xxxxx>  which is a nonsense
>address (unlike <abuse@xxxxx> which is not)

I see both of those as nonsense addresses. 

>you may also have missed my earlier example of <m@im>

No, I saw your earlier example of m@im. I guess I'm not the only one who
doesn't consider that a valid FQDN. In fact, I seem to recall that UNIX,
at the very least, will always treat that as an UNqualified hostname,
and try to fully qualify it prior to use.

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:40:25 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, John
Stanley <[email-masked]> writes

>I see both of those as nonsense addresses.

that's because your procmail bounced the cc that I sent you specially :(

c'est la vie

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin