You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Rupert Gallagher <ru...@protonmail.com> on 2017/10/25 14:29:47 UTC
Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822 compliant
Reading RFC 822 again, I spotted the endorsement for the case at hand.
The named header is compliant to the standard, as quoted below.
However, the same standard does not compel a server to accept e-mail
sent to undisclosed recipients: we are free to reject it by local policy.
6.2.6. MULTIPLE MAILBOXES
[...]
A set of individuals may wish to receive mail as a single unit
(i.e., a distribution list). The <group> construct permits
specification of such a list. Recipient mailboxes are speci-
fied within the bracketed part (":" - ";"). A copy of the
transmitted message is to be sent to each mailbox listed.
This standard does not permit recursive specification of
groups within groups.
> While a list must be named, it is not required that the con-
> tents of the list be included. In this case, the <address>
> serves only as an indication of group distribution and would
> appear in the form:
>
> name:;
Some mail services may provide a group-list distribution
facility, accepting a single mailbox reference, expanding it
to the full distribution list, and relaying the mail to the
list's members. This standard provides no additional syntax
for indicating such a service. Using the <group> address
alternative, while listing one mailbox in it, can mean either
that the mailbox reference will be expanded to a list or that
there is a group with one member.
A. EXAMPLES
A.1.5. Address Lists
Gourmets: Pompous Person <Wh...@Cordon-Bleu>, Childs@WGBH.Boston,
Galloping Gourmet@ANT.Down-Under (Australian National Television),
Cheapie@Discount-Liquors;,
Cruisers: Port@Portugal, Jones@SEA;,
Another@Somewhere.SomeOrg
Re: Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822 compliant
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
>Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
>> RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
On 27.10.17 16:08, A. Schulze wrote:
>... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
irelevant, the group addresses are still valid:
group = display-name ":" [group-list] ";" [CFWS]
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
"Where do you want to go to die?" [Microsoft]
Re: Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822 compliant
Posted by Rupert Gallagher <ru...@protonmail.com>.
They can say something along these lines: "Rejected by local policy. Although e-mails to undisclosed recipients are allowed by RFC-822, the same does not mandate their acceptance."
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:33 PM, David B Funk <db...@engineering.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, A. Schulze wrote: > > > Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr: >> RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822. > ... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs > see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 And it still explicitly says that construct is legal: rfc5322:3.4 ... This is done by giving a display name for the group, followed by a colon, followed by a comma-separated list of any number of mailboxes (including zero and one), and ending with a semicolon. Because the list of mailboxes can be empty, using the group construct is also a simple way to communicate to recipients that the message was sent to one or more named sets of recipients, without actually providing the individual mailbox address for any of those recipients. Anybody can block mail for any reason they want ("my server, my rules"). But if they claim to do so with RFC justification for this case, then they're playing in the realm of "Alternative Facts" -- Dave Funk University of Iowa College of Engineering 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527 #include Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
Re: Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822
compliant
Posted by David B Funk <db...@engineering.uiowa.edu>.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, A. Schulze wrote:
>
>
> Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
>> RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
> ... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
> see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
And it still explicitly says that construct is legal:
rfc5322:3.4
... This is done by giving a display name for the group,
followed by a colon, followed by a comma-separated list of any number
of mailboxes (including zero and one), and ending with a semicolon.
Because the list of mailboxes can be empty, using the group construct
is also a simple way to communicate to recipients that the message
was sent to one or more named sets of recipients, without actually
providing the individual mailbox address for any of those recipients.
Anybody can block mail for any reason they want ("my server, my rules"). But if
they claim to do so with RFC justification for this case, then they're playing
in the realm of "Alternative Facts"
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
Re: Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822 compliant
Posted by "A. Schulze" <sc...@andreasschulze.de>.
Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
> RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
Re: Your header "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" is RFC 822 compliant
Posted by "@lbutlr" <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 25 Oct 2017, at 08:29, Rupert Gallagher <ru...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Reading RFC 822 again, I spotted the endorsement for the case at hand.
> The named header is compliant to the standard, as quoted below.
RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
--
Apple broke AppleScripting signatures in Mail.app, so no random signatures.