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.


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:
>    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

Reply via email to