From: Mike '/m' 


Another interesting aspect of this bug is that the From: fields and the
Reply To: fields allow the dotted quad email address.  Only the To: field
has the bug that does not allow a valid dotted quad email address to be
entered.

If a valid email address is accepted in the From: and Reply To: fields, why
isn't it accepted in the To: field?

Sounds like someone has a UI consistency bug to fix, at the very least.

 /m



On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:13:54 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

>   Or you could have just read my email before you replied to it with more
complaints and more evidence that you care more about complaining than the
topics about which you complain.
>
>Rich
>
>  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
news:8rmoj111q3g7s3sbuarrdenedijcsrvvuc{at}4ax.com...
>
>  I played with this a bit more today.
>
>  I changed the address that Outlook puts in the From: field for outgoing
>  emails to email{at}[123.123.123.123] (I'll call this a "dotted quad"
>  address for this message), then saved that new config.  I sent myself an
>  email.  When the email arrived in my inbox, the From: address was the
>  dotted quad.  I OMB clicked on the dotted quad address, and selected the
>  add it to my address book option.
>
>  Then I changed the From: address back to what it should be.
>
>  Now I can send an email to that dotted quad address, Outlook accepts it
>  as input.
>
>  The reason I did this is that previously when I wanted to send an email
>  to a dotted quad address, I could enter it into the To: field, but
>  Outlook would not allow me to send it.  Outlook would push me over to
>  enter the address into Outlook's address book.
>
>  I guess that Outlook doesn't allow me to send an email to someone who is
>  not in my address book?  I'm not sure why it would do this, I know that
>  Outlook 97 didn't have this behavior.  Maybe that's why Outlook '97
>  worked and Outlook 2003 doesn't.
>
>  In any case, it looks like it may be the input routines for entering an
>  email address into Outlook's address book that has the problem with the
>  RFC-compliant dotted quad address.  Once a dotted quad address is in the
>  address book, I can send email to it.
>
>  Weird.
>
>   /m
>
>
>
>  On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:50:32 -0400, "Geo"
 wrote:
>
>  >"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>  >news:25ugj1psik6mb69ifo2vfg6u7fg5uapm43{at}4ax.com...
>  >
>  >> I have not been able to get Outlook to send an email to
>  >>
>  >>    email{at}[123.123.123.123]
>  >>
>  >> where 123.123.123.123 is the IP address of a email server, and 'email'
>  >> is a valid email account on that server.  I believe this is an RFC
>  >> requirement, just like proper SMTP handling.
>  >
>  >Perhaps you have an email admin like me who blocks email to an {at}ipaddress
>  >address? Some things need to change because of spam and many of the rfc's
>  >are sort of unchanging if you know what I mean.
>  >
>  >Oh, I also block remote bounce notifications because they cause more
>  >problems than they solve. If you accept the email then deliver it, don't be
>  >returning it as undeliverable after you accept delivery is how it works in
>  >todays spam and virus filled world.
>  >
>  >> Also, I keep nicknames for my friends.  For example, I use
bob-w for Bob
>  >> at work, Bob-h for Bob at home.  Well, Bob changed jobs, so I changed
>  >> the email address for Bob-w in the address book to his new email
>  >> address.  Unfortunately, Outlook also stores the email
address somewhere
>  >> else, and insists on sending Bob-w emails to his old email
address. I've
>  >> not found the other location in the address book or configuration
>  >> options yet.  I now have a NewBob-w entry in the address book to work
>  >> around this feature.
>  >
>  >Yeah, Microsoft probably let the guy who did IE's braindead autocomplete
>  >write that stupid routine. He need to be 2x4'd.
>  >
>  >> Don't get me started on Outlook and IMAP....
>  >
>  >I don't believe in IMAP in the ISP world, it's a po box not a damn garage.
>  >
>  >Geo.
>  >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5