I disagree. An empty data set can be a valid message. I find support in RFC 2821 Section 4.1.1.4.
Not RFC 2821. RFC 2822, section 3.6:
The only required header fields are the origination date field and the originator address field(s). All other header fields are syntactically optional.
Outside RFC 2821 I don't know so well. But I have the impression that SMTP message body can -- optionally -- contain a RFC 2822 message. But SMTP does not demand a RFC 2822 message in the body.
I wonder, do most MTA's demand that the SMTP message body be in the form specified by RFC 822 (or 2822)?
In any event, if you feel that your interpretation of the RFC is correct, and that everyone else is wrong, please contact the IETF to explain where they went wrong, and ask them to issue a correction.
I thought I was doing such homework when I took the question to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email list. But is that not the place to go with such issues?
As I have aged I think I have reduced the scope in which I take it upon myself to correct what I judge to be other peoples' errors. I am inclined to let this drop here. But I am not hiding. If they need the truth they can find me.
Obviously, we want to be RFC compliant.
On that score you probably need not worry. The RFC offers two distinct interpretations, and offers passages for each side to cite.
Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
