On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:57 AM, Ruga <r...@protonmail.com> wrote: > The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected upstream for > at least two reasons: > > > To: undisclosed recipients: ; > The To header is not RFC compliant.
Where do you get that idea? “Undisclosed recipient: ;” is a group address. RFS 2822 A.1.3: From: Pete <pete@silly.example> To: A Group:Chris Jones <c...@a.test>,j...@where.test,John <j...@one.test>; Cc: Undisclosed recipients:; Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1969 23:32:54 -0330 Message-ID: <testabcd.1234@silly.example> Testing. ---- In this message, the "To:" field has a single group recipient named A Group which contains 3 addresses, and a "Cc:" field with an empty group recipient named Undisclosed recipients. Please note that in the example given the To field contains a SINGLE group recipient. Also, in 3.4: " An address may either be an individual mailbox, or a group of mailboxes.” and in 3.6.3: "The destination fields of a message consist of three possible fields, each of the same form: The field name, which is either "To", "Cc", or "Bcc", followed by a comma-separated list of one or more addresses (either mailbox or group syntax).” So, yes, Undiscloded recipients: ; is absolutely valid. > The Subject header exceeds the maximum line length, being another RFC > constraints. 2.1.1: "There are two limits that this standard places on the number of characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding the CRLF.” While I am here, ‘+’ is a perfectly valid character in the user portion of an email, a fact that seems to elude many email “admins”. -- Apple broke AppleScripting signatures in Mail.app, so no random signatures.
