Re: incoming mail without information in the from, to, subject fields

From: Hairy One Kenobi (abuse_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 04/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:04:14 +0100

"Pique@boo" <me9@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c686jd$8thnc$1@ID-211118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> > Still, could you point out the section in 822 that states "MUST" have
> > a "From:" header? I seem to have missed it, and 4.4.1 seems to
> > contradict your view (although it wouldn't be the last time that an
> > RFC wasn't consistent! ;o)
>
> Hi H1K.. and TskTsk[tm] to everyone in this subthread because RFC'S 821
> & 822 are **obselete** having been superseded by 2821 & 2822
> respectively.
>
> RFC 2822 section 3.6 requires "origination date" and "originator
> field(s)". Section 3.6.2 has a slightly different take on Froms, Senders
> et al.

True about the older RFCs.. personally, I'm a little agin 2821 - for one
thing, it'll cause complete email chaos when a virus gets released (uh
huh..), for another it dumps the SEND function for no other reason that
noone else seems to have thought about using existing protocols for instant
messaging ;o)

Seem to remember that this got thrashed out on the NTL froup? There was a
minor disagreement as to whether a "domain" was the fully-qualified host or
not. 'Twas a while back, admittedly..

H1K

Relevant Pages
Quantcast