>> I believe you can't send a valid RFC 822 message with no TO recipient and
>> only BCC recipients. But I'm not sure of that.
>From RFC 822:
> A.3.1. Minimum required
>
> Date: 26 Aug 76 1429 EDT Date: 26 Aug 76 1429 EDT
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bcc: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Note that the "Bcc" field may be empty, while the "To" field
> is required to have at least one address.
> C.3.4. DESTINATION
>
> A message must contain at least one destination address field.
> "To" and "CC" are required to contain at least one address.
This seeming contradiction (1) is why some servers require a To or CC
recipient and some servers do not.
In theory, the mail client software could attempt to simply add a blank BCC
header; however, in practice, this hardly ever works.
mikel
(1) It's not really a contradiction. Within RFC 822, it's the Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) meta-language definition that constitutes the "one true
definition" of the standard. And that makes it perfectly clear that Section
C.3.4 of the standard might better have read something like this:
> C.3.4. DESTINATION
>
> A message must contain at least one destination address field (i.e. "To",
> "CC", "Bcc"). "To" and "CC" are required to contain at least one address,
> whereas "Bcc" may contain zero or more addresses.
Of course, it's easy to say how things might have been made better 25 years
after the fact. ;-)
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
