|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:50:26 CDT, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." said: > Where is RFC 2821 is this requirement, by the way? RFC 2822 > says it is optional but seems to be less than useful in the > context here. 2821 is about the SMTP side of things. By the time the MTA is handed a list of RCPT TO's, it's waaay past time to argue about Reply-to:. (As a matter of fact, careful reading of 2821 will reveal that there's no *specific* requirement that the stuff between the DATA and final '.' even be an 822-style e-mail - I've seen blecherous things that toss an X.400 blob around in there instead...) 2822 and related would be the right place, as that's about the 822-style headers on the mail itself. As already noted by several people, Reply-To: doesn't necessarily impose the proper semantics (and before anybody pipes up, Bernstein's "Mail-Followup-To:" isn't perfect either, *and* there's not even an active I-D for it, much less any sort of RFC). Attachment:
pgp00027.pgp
|