[OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)

Fri Jun 11 17:08:08 UTC 2004

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).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040611/ab29607d/attachment.sig>