Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E412E019B
	for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  9 Jun 2008 04:29:55 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 92830-05
	for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  9 Jun 2008 04:29:31 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26B72E027E
	for <pgsql-www@postgreSQL.org>; Mon,  9 Jun 2008 03:30:56 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m596Uthr005609
	for <pgsql-www@postgreSQL.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: pgsql-www@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Message-ID should surely not be shown as a mailto: URL
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:30:55 -0400
Message-ID: <5608.1212993055@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200806/47
X-Sequence-Number: 15274

So looking at page source for, eg,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-06/msg00338.php

I see

<li><strong>From</strong>: Tom Lane &lt;<a href="mailto:tgl@DOMAIN.HIDDEN">tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us</a>&gt;</li>
<li><strong>To</strong>: <a href="mailto:pgsql-hackers@DOMAIN.HIDDEN">pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org</a></li>
<li><strong>Subject</strong>: Re: We have a launch abort ... PG update releases will be delayed</li>
<li><strong>Date</strong>: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:45:56 -0400</li>
<li><strong>Message-id</strong>: &lt;<a href="mailto:20506.1212853556@DOMAIN.HIDDEN">20506(dot)1212853556(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us</a>&gt;</li>

This seems outright silly.  In the first place, I do not see the value
of displaying mailto: URLs containing intentionally-broken addresses.
In the second, even if the domain names were fixed, there is no way on
god's green earth that mailto: a Message-ID is going to work.

Hm, I wonder if sloppiness of this sort accounts for the remarkable
prevalence in my mail logs of spam-sign like this:

Jun  9 00:44:06 sss2 sm-mta[4062]: m594i5Ns004062: <19570.1142971720@sss.pgh.pa.us>... User unknown

I don't pretend to know what is the approved way to deal with these
issues, but *this* can't be best practice.

			regards, tom lane