OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: Legal mailbox names? (was Re: unknown mail transport ...)
From: Admin Mailing Lists (mlistintergrafix.net)
Date: Tue Apr 11 2000 - 16:10:09 CDT

On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, furio ercolessi wrote:
>
> I know it's not clean, but I have been using (not with postfix)
> a two-level hashed spool allowing . (not as the first character)
> and I did not experience any problem so far.
> User f.bar gets mapped into f/./bar which is the same as f/bar,
> so the file is stored one level up and we live with it.
> Of course a username like f.b (just one character after the dot)
> would give us troubles but I have disallowed them, and no one ever
> noticed. At that time (1996 or 97) I asked to the procmail list as
> I was perplexed, and people there told me not to worry and go ahead...
>

doesn't your pop3/imap daemon get confused? or have you modified that in
accordance with your MTA hashing rule.

using a . in a username, you obviously have to be careful if you pass
usernames to system scripts/commands. e.g. chown $username.$group
you'd obviously have to user the uid or some formatting trickery.
adding a user for a frontpage web also springs to mind as problems with
chowning.

I allow - and _ and that's it.

-Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer
adminintergrafix.net Intergrafix Internet Services

    "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today"
http://cygnus.ncohafmuta.com http://www.intergrafix.net
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.