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 09:02:08 +0100

"Barry Margolin" <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-1C7BA4.11062021042004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <V%phc.33$tO6.19@newsfe1-win>,
> "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> > "Kevin Rodgers" <ihs_4664@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:40855ABE.9030204@yahoo.com...
> > > Alan Connor wrote:
> >
> > > > I tried that and got a "From " header with the address in the "mail
> > from:<.*>
> > > > header. No other headers, but that one for sure. Tried twice.
> > >
> > > The "From " line is not a message header, it is a delimiter specific
to
> > > the Unix mbox file format that is added by the MTA (e.g. sendmail or
> > > procmail). Other file formats like MMDF use different delimiters.
> > >
> > > RFC 822 specifies that a "From:" header is required in the message
itself.
> >
> > Erm.. 822 specifies what a From: header /is/, and how it's formatted.
RFC
>
> It also lists the headers that are required, and "From:" is one of them.
>
> > 821 (SMTP, what we're talking about ;o) specifies where a blank From: is
> > actually recommended..
> >
> > (Hint: mails where failures should not be reported)
>
> RFC 821 refers to the address used in the "MAIL FROM" command, not the
> "From:" header. This address, generally called the "envelope sender",
> ends up in the "Return-Path:" header during final delivery.

.. and stipulates specifically when blanks *should* be used. Which is, after
all, what we're talking about ;o)

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)

H1K