If you pick up the snail mail equivalent, you either have spam without address
or a mail with someone else's address. We put the spam where it belongs, and
return the other unopened.
We make no exception to e-mail, because they are mail after all.
The RFC should be amended. If not, we still reject on common sense. Our mail,
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 22:26, Joseph Brennan <bren...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Objection. RFC 822, section A.3.1 "Minimum required" shows two alternatives
> of the minimum. The one on the left has Date and From and Bcc, and the Bcc
> has no address in it. The other one on the right has Date and From and a To
> field with an address in it.
> Now read it again:
> 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.
> A.3.1 clarifies that the minimum required is either Bcc or To, both of which
> are destination fields, and that if the destination field is To, then To must
> contain an address.
> In section 4.5.3 it states that Bcc contents are not included in copies sent,
> which leaves a transmitted message with just Date and From, the state which
> the plaintiff claims is not compliant.
> -- Joseph Brennan