Always Learning wrote:
> Bonjour Mihamina,
>
> Merci pour votre réponse a le samedi le 24. avril 2010 (23h51 +03:00)
>
>
>>> Always Learning <exim.users@???> :
>>> Why are you spending your time mentioning an out-of-date RFC ?
>> Out of date?
>
> Qui. Ce vrai.
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/
>
> RFC 2822
> (draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt) Internet Message Format 2001-04 RFC
> 2822 (Proposed Standard)
>
> Obsoleted by RFC 5322
>
> Updated by RFC 5335, RFC 5336
>
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Paul.
>
So Paul,
... you didn't actually read *any* of these RFC?
FWIW, the 'Updated by...' two both have to do with internationalization.
Not relevant here.
But the table in the 'obsoleted' RFC 2822 Martin tried to bring to your
attention has the same entry in the latest relevant RFC 5322, both in section
3.6 ...
... and both citing a minimum' of '0' occurrences of the 'To:' field.
That is a *zero* in case your mail reader font didn't make it clear.
Martin and I have been known to disagree over RFC interpretations.
Bigtime.
;-)
But there is *no wiggle-room at all* on this one.
The relevant RFC permits a missing 'To:' field.
.. and - not to put too fine a point on it, 'To:' is not the only field that may
be omitted. Several of your pets have 'conditional' omission permitted (see
their notes).
And an *unconditional* 'zero' count is granted for:
reply-to
to
cc
bcc
subject
Yes, even an empty Subject: is permitted.
Annoying? Usually!
But prohibited? NOT.
Doubt you will suceed at boiling this ocean - but you could wake up and smell
the coffee before the undertow sucks you further out to sea.
Bill
