From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_03A3_01C5CC14.DC666F00
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Keep spinning and we might believe you are as stupid as you pretend.  =
It's clear that you are not pretending to be whiny.

Rich

  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:o2sfk1pu3batfji0g5845n3k5miqfictjk{at}4ax.com...

  So then you think it is OK that the To: does not accept a valid
  RFC-compliant email address without the need to use your kludgy
  work-around?





  On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:56:02 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

  >   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_03A3_01C5CC14.DC666F00
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Keep
spinning and we might =
believe you=20
are as stupid as you pretend.  It's clear that you are not =
pretending to be=20
whiny.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:o2sfk1pu3ba=
tfji0g5845n3k5miqfictjk{at}4ax.com...So=20
  then you think it is OK that the To: does not accept a =
validRFC-compliant=20
  email address without the need to use your=20
 
kludgywork-around?On
Thu, 6 Oct 2005 =
21:56:02=20
  -0700, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>   Your attempts =
at=20
  spinning aren't accomplishing more than making yourself dizzy.  =
Your head=20
  is obviously not
clear.>>   In other
words, =
why is the=20
  format for SMTP only fields different from fields that support =
arbitrary=20
  target types like FAX, telex, and X.500?  The answer should be=20
  clear.  And neither the optional from or reply to fields in an =
email=20
  message are one of these.  Those use the syntax you didn't know =
and feel=20
  compelled to complain about than say thank=20
 
you.>>Rich>> 
"Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:t6jbk1d58fs=
0jgk1riekrct82ok5gcdira{at}4ax.com...> =20
  If that is the case, then why can I enter that same dotted quad=20
  email>  address into other address fields (such as tthe =
From:=20
  field) and Outlook>  accepts it without your kludgy=20
  workaround?>>   =
/m>>>  On=20
  Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:47:43 -0700, "Rich" <{at}> =
wrote:>> =20
  >   It's not a work around.  That is
how you specify =
an=20
  email address with special characters.  As you have made clear =
you prefer=20
  to whine and complain and will repeatedly do so.> =20
  >> 
>Rich> 
>>  =
>  "Mike=20
  '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:vj4bk1p6lbo=
9umbic44q9kph80vbvqdb28{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >>  >  I read and saw a
kludgy workaround.=20
  >  >> 
>  I did not see anything =
that=20
  resolved the bug.  Maybe you could quote the>  =
> =20
  part of your message that resolves the bug?>  =
>> =20
  >   /m> 
>>  >  On =
Wed, 5 Oct=20
  2005 21:04:25 -0700, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>  =
>> =20
  >  >   Still demonstrating that
you would rather =
complain=20
  then read and learn how you are wrong.> 
> =20
  >>  > 
>Rich>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:5oi8k15acbm=
e7bhvo1vnnsh7iehooc94fg{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  Another =
interesting aspect=20
  of this bug is that the From: fields and the> 
> =20
  >  Reply To: fields allow the dotted quad email
address.  =
Only=20
  the To:>  >  > 
field has the bug that =
does not=20
  allow a valid dotted quad email address> 
>  =
>  to=20
  be entered.>  > 
>>  >  =
> =20
  If a valid email address is accepted in the From: and Reply To:=20
  fields,>  >  > 
why isn't it accepted in =
the To:=20
  field?>  > 
>>  >  =
> =20
  Sounds like someone has a UI consistency bug to fix, at the very=20
  least.>  > 
>>  >  =
>  =20
  /m>  > 
>>  >  =
>> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  On Thu, 29 Sep =
2005=20
  19:13:54 -0700, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  >   Or you could =
have=20
  just read my email before you replied to it with more complaints and =
more=20
  evidence that you care more about complaining than the topics about =
which you=20
  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=20
  played with this a bit more today.> 
>  >  =

  >>  > 
>  >  I changed the =
address that=20
  Outlook puts in the From: field for outgoing> 
> =20
  >  >  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=20
  for this message), then saved that new config.  I sent myself=20
  an>  >  > 
>  email.  When =
the email=20
  arrived in my inbox, the From: address was the>  =
> =20
  >  >  dotted quad.  I OMB
clicked on the dotted =
quad=20
  address, and selected the>  > 
>  =
>  add=20
  it to my address book option.> 
>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  >  Then I changed the =
From:=20
  address back to what it should be.> 
>  >  =

  >>  > 
>  >  Now I can send an =
email to=20
  that dotted quad address, Outlook accepts it> 
> =20
  >  >  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:=20
  field, but>  > 
>  >  Outlook =
would not=20
  allow me to send it.  Outlook would push me over
to>  =

  >  >  >  enter the
address into Outlook's =
address=20
  book.   >  > 
>  =
>> =20
  >  >  >  I guess that
Outlook doesn't allow me =
to send=20
  an email to someone who is>  > 
>  =
>  not=20
  in my address book?  I'm not sure why it would do this, I know=20
  that>  >  > 
>  Outlook 97 didn't =
have=20
  this behavior.  Maybe that's why Outlook '97>  =
> =20
  >  >  worked and Outlook 2003
doesn't.> =20
  >  > 
>>  >  > 
=
>  In=20
  any case, it looks like it may be the input routines for entering=20
  an>  >  > 
>  email address into =
Outlook's=20
  address book that has the problem with the> 
>  =
> =20
  >  RFC-compliant dotted quad address.  Once a
dotted quad =
address=20
  is in the>  > 
>  >  address book, =
I can=20
  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
  >  > 
>>  >  > 
=
> =20
  >"Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message>  > 
>  > =20
 
>news:25ugj1psik6mb69ifo2vfg6u7fg5uapm43{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  >  > 
>>  >  =
> =20
  >  >> I have not been able to get Outlook
to send an =
email=20
  to>  >  > 
>  =
>>> =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,=20
  and 'email'>  > 
>  >  >> is =
a valid=20
  email account on that server.  I believe this is an =
RFC> =20
  >  >  >  >>
requirement, just like =
proper SMTP=20
  handling.>  > 
>  >  =
>> =20
  >  >  >  >Perhaps
you have an email admin =
like me=20
  who blocks email to an {at}ipaddress> 
>  > =20
  >  >address? Some things need to change because of
spam and =
many of=20
  the rfc's>  > 
>  >  >are sort =
of=20
  unchanging if you know what I mean.> 
>  =
> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  >  >Oh, =
I also=20
  block remote bounce notifications because they cause =
more> =20
  >  >  >  >problems
than they solve. If you =
accept=20
  the email then deliver it, don't be> 
>  =
> =20
  >  >returning it as undeliverable after you accept
delivery =
is how=20
  it works in>  > 
>  >  >todays =
spam and=20
  virus filled world.>  > 
>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  >  >> Also, I =
keep=20
  nicknames for my friends.  For example, I use bob-w for =
Bob> =20
  >  >  >  >>
at work, Bob-h for Bob at=20
  home.  Well, Bob changed jobs, so I changed>  =
> =20
  >  >  >> the email address
for Bob-w in the =
address book=20
  to his new email>  > 
>  >  =
>>=20
  address.  Unfortunately, Outlook also stores the email address=20
  somewhere>  > 
>  >  >> =
else, and=20
  insists on sending Bob-w emails to his old email address. =
I've> =20
  >  >  >  >>
not found the other location =
in the=20
  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=20
  did IE's braindead autocomplete> 
>  >  =
> =20
  >write that stupid routine. He need to be
2x4'd.>  =
> =20
  >  > 
>>  >  > 
=
> =20
  >> Don't get me started on Outlook and
IMAP....>  =
> =20
  >  > 
>>  >  > 
=
> =20
  >I don't believe in IMAP in the ISP world, it's a po box not a damn =

  garage.>  >  > 
>  =
>> =20
  >  >  > 
>Geo.>  >  =
> =20
  >  >

------=_NextPart_000_03A3_01C5CC14.DC666F00--

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