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 17:59:30 +0100

"Barry Margolin" <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-DEAE9E.09522822042004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <c686jd$8thnc$1@ID-211118.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Pique@boo" <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > 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 & 822 are **obselete** having been superseded by 2821 & 2822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.
> >
> > ~pique@boo
>
> And even the original RFC 822 said that the From: header was required.
> Section 4.1 says:
>
> fields = dates ; Creation time,
> source ; author id & one
> 1*destination ; address required
> *optional-field ; others optional
>
> And Appendix A.3.1 says:
>
> A.3.1. Minimum required
>
> Date: 26 Aug 76 1429 EDT Date: 26 Aug 76 1429 EDT
> From: Jones@Registry.Org or From: Jones@Registry.Org
> Bcc: To: Smith@Registry.Org
>
> Note that the "Bcc" field may be empty, while the "To" field
> is required to have at least one address.

..and 4.4.1 seems to give alternatives..

H1K

Quantcast