From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_02A4_01C5C9F0.5DE8D080
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_02A4_01C5C9F0.5DE8D080
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Still
demonstrating that =
you would=20
rather complain then read and learn how you are wrong.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:5oi8k15acbm=
e7bhvo1vnnsh7iehooc94fg{at}4ax.com...Another=20
  interesting aspect of this bug is that the From: fields and =
theReply To:=20
  fields allow the dotted quad email address.  Only the =
To:field has=20
  the bug that does not allow a valid dotted quad email addressto be =

  entered.If a valid email address is accepted in the From: and =
Reply=20
  To: fields,why isn't it accepted in the To:
field?Sounds =
like=20
  someone has a UI consistency bug to fix, at the very=20
 
least. /mOn
Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:13:54 =
-0700,=20
  "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>   Or you could have
just =
read my=20
  email before you replied to it with more complaints and more evidence =
that you=20
  care more about complaining than the topics about which you=20
 
complain.>>Rich>> 
"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 more
today.>>  I changed =
the=20
  address that Outlook puts in the From: field for =
outgoing>  emails=20
  to email{at}[123.123.123.123]">mailto:email{at}[123.123.123.123">email{at}[123.123.123.123]
(I'll =

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

  >>  >> Also, I keep
nicknames for my =
friends.  For=20
  example, I use bob-w for Bob>  >>
at work, Bob-h for =
Bob at=20
  home.  Well, Bob changed jobs, so I changed>  =
>> the=20
  email address for Bob-w in the address book to his new =
email> =20
  >> address.  Unfortunately, Outlook also stores the email =
address=20
  somewhere>  >> else, and insists
on sending Bob-w =
emails to=20
  his old email address. I've>  >>
not found the other =

  location in the address book or configuration> 
>> =
options=20
  yet.  I now have a NewBob-w entry in the address book to=20
  work>  >> around this
feature.> =20
  >>  >Yeah, Microsoft probably let
the guy who did =
IE's=20
  braindead autocomplete>  >write that
stupid routine. He =
need to=20
  be 2x4'd.> 
>>  >> Don't get me =
started on=20
  Outlook and IMAP....> 
>>  >I don't =
believe in=20
  IMAP in the ISP world, it's a po box not a damn
garage.> =20
  >>  >Geo.>  =
>

------=_NextPart_000_02A4_01C5C9F0.5DE8D080--

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