ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Empty 5322.From address or 5322.From address containing <>

2010-04-16 09:42:40



On 4/16/2010 1:28 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

On 04/16/2010 10:02 AM, Sonneveld, Rolf wrote:
in the header of the notification mail. Please note: the above From is
the header From (5322.From), not the envelope From (5321.From). Are the
above From: header lines valid according to RFC822/2822/5322?

No.

I've seen a lot of other invalid hacks, too. The only one I've seen
that's syntactically legal is From: ""@[], which may have syntax going
for it, but I do find it somewhat lacking in charm.

It seems to me they are not valid, as from RFC5322 I get the impression
that a From address at least should contain an "@" and a localpart and a
domainname, and even if localpart and domainname would be allowed to be
empty, there's still the "@" sign...

The localpart can be empty (IMO that's highly inadvisable, but it is
legal).

I'm not seeing it allowed in the ABNF:

    addr-spec       =   local-part "@" domain

    local-part      =   dot-atom / quoted-string / obs-local-part

    dot-atom-text   =   1*atext *("." 1*atext)

    dot-atom        =   [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net