[Sorry for elaborating on this off-topic issue.]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Matt Garretson wrote:
MG | Is it possible for there to be more than one Date: header in
MG | a message (even if it's not legal)?
I was thinking about that.
No, I do not think that MTAs accept more than one "Date: ..." field.
Your claim is not supported by RFC 822 4.1. It is also not in the spirit of
the mail relevant RFCs ("be liberal in what you accept, and adamant in what
you send out"). Additional Date: fields are hardly reason to refuse inbound
Nevertheless, did I get this right:
RFC 821 / STD 010 indicate that MTAs must parse header fields and even
correct them, if necessary. That would mean with MTAs following STD
010 said exploit would be harmless?
Where does RFC 821 say that? 821 is about SMTP, and mail headers are
totally irrelevant to SMTP. I cannot find anything in 822 and 1123
that would require the MTA to rewrite (or correct) the Date: header.
My, necessarily limited, experience: if a message has no Date: header,
the MTA adds it, in the format specified by 822/5 and 1123/5.2.14.; if
a message has at least one Date: header, the MTA leaves it/those alone.
procmail mailing list