[71241] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Jun 11 13:13:41 2004
To: "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
Cc: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:50:26 CDT."
<40C9E2D2.1050001@cox.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:08:08 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1879730560P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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).
--==_Exmh_1879730560P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFAyeb3cC3lWbTT17ARAlysAKCJ07BHerH4JJ3d/6u57qrf8QU+awCcCW8R
c2t3YUkggNtutc4dj9W+b1U=
=6YIp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1879730560P--
