On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2004, at 18:18, Michael Holzt wrote:
>
> >> Empty messages (no data at all) are irretrievably broken. There is no
> >> diagnostic information available in the message (since there isn't
> >> one).
> >
> > A message does not need "diagnostic information" to have a purpose.
> > Everything related to mail transport (and _thats_ what the qpsmtpd
> > core is about) is signalled outside of the message. A empty message
> > might very well trigger some action at the recipient.
>
> I'd like to hear a valid reason you actually want these messages. And a
> serious example of when you might, not just quoting RFCs again.
Since it breaks legitimate mail, I'll probably not implement
something that blocks empty messages.
I have seen where empty messages are used for replies to listmail
managers (no body required, just a response), and other types of
"automated" mail. Frankly, I often send a short message using only the
Subject.
(Note: I haven't fully read the entire thread, so my explanation
may not apply. For example, I do require non-blank Subject lines, so if
the discussion applies to headers, also, then things are a bit different.)
--
Roger Walker
"HIS Pain - OUR Gain"
