Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks

> > my gut sense is that omitting From: will cause fewer problems than 
> > either From: <> or From: <""@[]>
> But none of these is of any use to the man who wants to include a 
> mailbox
> of some sort (to distinguish him from all the other Joe Does),
there's no good reason to include a bogus mailbox.  if the sender wants 
to be distinguished from other John Does, define a different way to do 
that.
> or who even want to hide his real mail address inside the bogus one in 
> a form that a human can easily disentangle.
again, if the human recipient has to "manually" disentangle the 
address, there's no reason it has to be in the From field.
> Both these practices are already widespread, and they are not going to 
> stop just because we say so.
that's not a good reason for standardizing them.  and they don't meet 
the criteria in 2026.