search for: sqrtdsv_dgbhhu2ghdcdfo_pm8q

Hi, Is this expected or not? From: user1 at fuga.example.com <user1 at example.com> To: user2 at hoge.example.com <user2 at example.com> ? a uid fetch 43055 (envelope) * 1860 FETCH (UID 43055 ENVELOPE ("Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:52:59 +0900" "test1" ((NIL NIL "user1" "fuga.example.com")) ((NIL NIL "user1" "fuga.example.com"))

...pAZFNeQbPPITjRwimDyamnBm1 at test>")) This is an invalid email address, so it's neither correct nor incorrect to have this output. But this reminded me that I was going to discuss about this with other IETF people. Lets see what others think: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/sqRTdsV_DGBhHu2ghdCDFo_pM8Q/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/sqRTdsV_DGBhHu2ghdCDFo_pM8Q/> > From: "user1 at fuga.example.com" <user1 at example.com> > To: "user2 at hoge.example.com" <user2 at example.com> > ? > a uid fetch 43056 (envelope) > * 1861 FETCH (UID...

...gt;")) > > This is an invalid email address, so it's neither correct nor > incorrect to have this output. But this reminded me that I was going > to discuss about this with other IETF people. Lets see what others > think: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/sqRTdsV_DGBhHu2ghdCDFo_pM8Q/ While it is an invalid email address, in the exact same vein as <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2020-August/119658.html> Dovecot's approach is unhelpful here, and means MUAs must download complete headers rather than reply on envelope address structures. In fact, unlike in th...