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, our rules. R 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
