From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0310_01C5CAC0.BE526690
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Your attempts at spinning aren't accomplishing more than making =
yourself dizzy.  Your head is obviously not clear.

   In other words, why is the format for SMTP only fields different from =
fields that support arbitrary target types like FAX, telex, and X.500?  =
The answer should be clear.  And neither the optional from or reply to =
fields in an email message are one of these.  Those use the syntax you =
didn't know and feel compelled to complain about than say thank you.

Rich

  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:t6jbk1d58fs0jgk1riekrct82ok5gcdira{at}4ax.com...
  If that is the case, then why can I enter that same dotted quad email
  address into other address fields (such as tthe From: field) and =
Outlook
  accepts it without your kludgy workaround?

   /m


  On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:47:43 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

  >   It's not a work around.  That is how you specify an email address =
with special characters.  As you have made clear you prefer to whine and =
complain and will repeatedly do so.
  >
  >Rich
  >
  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:vj4bk1p6lbo9umbic44q9kph80vbvqdb28{at}4ax.com...
  >
  >  I read and saw a kludgy workaround.=20
  >
  >  I did not see anything that resolved the bug.  Maybe you could =
quote the
  >  part of your message that resolves the bug?
  >
  >   /m
  >
  >  On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:04:25 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:
  >
  >  >   Still demonstrating that you would rather complain then read =
and learn how you are wrong.
  >  >
  >  >Rich
  >  >
  >  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:5oi8k15acbme7bhvo1vnnsh7iehooc94fg{at}4ax.com...
  >  >
  >  >  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.  =20
  >  >  >
  >  >  >  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.
  >  >  >  >
------=_NextPart_000_0310_01C5CAC0.BE526690
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Your
attempts at spinning =
aren't=20
accomplishing more than making yourself dizzy.  Your head is =
obviously not=20
clear.
 
   In other
words, why is the =
format for=20
SMTP only fields different from fields that support arbitrary target = types like=20
FAX, telex, and X.500?  The answer should be clear.  And
= neither the=20
optional from or reply to fields in an email message are
one = of=20
these.  Those use the syntax you didn't know and feel compelled to
= complain=20
about than say thank you.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:t6jbk1d58fs=
0jgk1riekrct82ok5gcdira{at}4ax.com...If=20
  that is the case, then why can I enter that same dotted quad =
emailaddress=20
  into other address fields (such as tthe From: field) and =
Outlookaccepts it=20
  without your kludgy
workaround? /mOn
Thu, 6 =
Oct 2005=20
  17:47:43 -0700, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>   It's =
not a=20
  work around.  That is how you specify an email address with =
special=20
  characters.  As you have made clear you prefer to whine and =
complain and=20
  will repeatedly do
so.>>Rich>> 
"Mike =
'/m'"=20
  <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:vj4bk1p6lbo=
9umbic44q9kph80vbvqdb28{at}4ax.com...>> =20
  I read and saw a kludgy workaround.
>>  I did not =
see=20
  anything that resolved the bug.  Maybe you could quote =
the> =20
  part of your message that resolves the =
bug?>>  =20
  /m>>  On Wed, 5 Oct 2005
21:04:25 -0700, "Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote:>> 
>   Still demonstrating that =
you=20
  would rather complain then read and learn how you are =
wrong.> =20
  >> 
>Rich> 
>>  =
>  "Mike=20
  '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:5oi8k15acbm=
e7bhvo1vnnsh7iehooc94fg{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >>  >  Another
interesting aspect of this bug =
is that=20
  the From: fields and the>  > 
Reply To: fields =
allow the=20
  dotted quad email address.  Only the
To:>  >  =
field=20
  has the bug that does not allow a valid dotted quad email=20
  address>  >  to be
entered.> =20
  >>  >  If a valid email
address is accepted in =
the=20
  From: and Reply To: fields,> 
>  why isn't it =
accepted in=20
  the To: field?> 
>>  >  Sounds like =
someone=20
  has a UI consistency bug to fix, at the very least.> =20
  >>  >  
/m>  =
>> =20
  >>  >> 
>  On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 =
19:13:54=20
  -0700, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>  >>  =
> =20
  >   Or you could have just read my email before you =
replied to it=20
  with more complaints and more evidence that you care more about =
complaining=20
  than the topics about which you complain.> 
> =20
  >>  > 
>Rich>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:8rmoj111q3g=
7s3sbuarrdenedijcsrvvuc{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  I played with this =
a bit=20
  more today.>  > 
>>  >  =
> =20
  I changed the address that Outlook puts in the From: field for=20
  outgoing>  > 
>  emails to email{at}[123.123.123.123]">mailto:email{at}[123.123.123.123">email{at}[123.123.123.123]
=
(I'll call=20
  this a "dotted quad"> 
>  >  address for =
this=20
  message), then saved that new config.  I sent myself =
an> =20
  >  >  email.  When the email
arrived in my inbox, =
the=20
  From: address was the>  > 
>  dotted =
quad.  I=20
  OMB clicked on the dotted quad address, and selected
the>  =

  >  >  add it to my address book
option.> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  Then I changed the =
From:=20
  address back to what it should be.>  >  =
>> =20
  >  >  Now I can send an email to that dotted quad =
address,=20
  Outlook accepts it>  > 
>  as =
input.> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  The reason I did =
this is=20
  that previously when I wanted to send an email>  =
> =20
  >  to a dotted quad address, I could enter it into the To: =
field,=20
  but>  >  > 
Outlook would not allow me to =
send=20
  it.  Outlook would push me over to> 
>  =
> =20
  enter the address into Outlook's address book.   =
> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  I guess that =
Outlook=20
  doesn't allow me to send an email to someone who is>  =
> =20
  >  not in my address book?  I'm not sure why it would do =
this, I=20
  know that>  > 
>  Outlook 97 didn't have =
this=20
  behavior.  Maybe that's why Outlook
'97>  > =20
  >  worked and Outlook 2003
doesn't.>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  In any case, it looks like it =
may be=20
  the input routines for entering an> 
>  >  =
email=20
  address into Outlook's address book that has the problem with=20
  the>  >  > 
RFC-compliant dotted quad=20
  address.  Once a dotted quad address is in
the>  =
> =20
  >  address book, I can send email to
it.>  =
> =20
  >>  > 
>  Weird.>  =
> =20
  >>  > 
>   /m>  =
> =20
  >>  > 
>>  >  =
>> =20
  >  >  On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:50:32 -0400,
"Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net> =
wrote:> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  >"Mike '/m'" =
<mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in=20
  message>  >  > =20
 
>news:25ugj1psik6mb69ifo2vfg6u7fg5uapm43{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  > 
>>  >  > 
=
>> I have=20
  not been able to get Outlook to send an email to>  =
> =20
  >  >>> 
>  > =20
  >>    email{at}[123.123.123.123]>=">mailto:email{at}[123.123.123.123">email{at}[123.123.123.123]>=
; =20
  >  > 
>>>  > 
>  =
>>=20
  where 123.123.123.123 is the IP address of a email server, and=20
  'email'>  >  > 
>> is a valid email =
account=20
  on that server.  I believe this is an RFC>  =
> =20
  >  >> requirement, just like proper SMTP =
handling.> =20
  >  > 
>>  >  > 
=
>Perhaps you=20
  have an email admin like me who blocks email to an =
{at}ipaddress> =20
  >  >  >address? Some things need
to change because =
of spam=20
  and many of the rfc's>  > 
>  >are sort =
of=20
  unchanging if you know what I mean.> 
>  =
> =20
  >>  > 
>  >Oh, I also block remote =
bounce=20
  notifications because they cause more> 
>  =
> =20
  >problems than they solve. If you accept the email then deliver it, =
don't=20
  be>  >  > 
>returning it as =
undeliverable after=20
  you accept delivery is how it works in> 
>  =
> =20
  >todays spam and virus filled world.> 
>  =
> =20
  >>  > 
>  >> Also, I keep =
nicknames for=20
  my friends.  For example, I use bob-w for
Bob>  =
> =20
  >  >> at work, Bob-h for Bob at
home.  Well, Bob =
changed=20
  jobs, so I changed>  > 
>  >> the =
email=20
  address for Bob-w in the address book to his new
email> =20
  >  >  >> address. 
Unfortunately, Outlook =
also=20
  stores the email address somewhere> 
>  >  =

  >> else, and insists on sending Bob-w emails to his old email =
address.=20
  I've>  >  > 
>> not found the other =
location=20
  in the address book or configuration> 
>  =
> =20
  >> options yet.  I now have a NewBob-w entry in
the address =
book to=20
  work>  >  > 
>> around this=20
  feature.>  > 
>  >>  =
> =20
  >  >Yeah, Microsoft probably let the guy who did IE's =
braindead=20
  autocomplete>  > 
>  >write that stupid =

  routine. He need to be 2x4'd.> 
>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  >> Don't get me started =
on=20
  Outlook and IMAP....>  > 
>  =
>> =20
  >  >  >I don't believe in IMAP in
the ISP world, =
it's a po=20
  box not a damn garage.>  > 
>  =
>> =20
  >  > 
>Geo.>  > 
> =20
>

------=_NextPart_000_0310_01C5CAC0.BE526690--

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