From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
...
Interpretation of ietf docments of the era are at best an exercise in
hermeneutics. I use the term advisedly since there is much that is not
written that is as important as that which is.
We disagree about whether SMTP had more or less real "designing" than mail
protocols proposed in the last few years, not to mention the last few
weeks. I agree that x.400 had more "designing" than SMTP, but I think
"designing" that was what made x.400 the catastrophic mess that it was.
Do not ascribe to ignorance of others what may be due to your own lack of
knowledge. In this environment that type of talk is far more insulting than
anything else which may be said.
that's good advice
Rfc822 is a deeply flawed document. It was written in an ra when we did not
know better and it was writen in an era when rfc meant what it says. Rfcs
began not as standards but as the starting point for standards. But even so
it does not state that the to cc etc addresses mean other than what one
would assume them to mean.
My position is quite clear, he definitin of smtp is embedded in internet
usage. I would no more expect to be able to know the smtp spec from the rfcs
than I would expect to understand theology from reading the bible alone.
Your position seems to be whatever was meant by the words
] The RFC822 message standard requires every message to have a valid
] To: CC: or BCC: field identifying the recipient, making adjustment
] where necessary to account for messages relayed mailing lists
There is no apparent interpretation of those words that is consistent
with either RFC 822 that "meant what it says" or in practice then or
now.
The common proposals, suggestions, or demands that RFC headers should
include the target address (the demands are usually about a single
address) are founded on ignorance of the SMTP envelope and ignorance
of that technical ignorance. Once you know the SMTP envelope exists,
you see that adding a header that duplicates the envelope would be a
waste of bandwidth conveying no information but adding a new potential
error or at least confusing case. The information conveyed by a BCC
header mentioning the target address would be only "this message was
explicitly or implicitly BCC'ed to you." That information is already
conveyed by the combination of your address being absent from CC and
TO headers and the presenced of your address in the envelope.
Never mind that that the last Received header ought to and generally does
contain the envelope or target's address except when there is more than
one target so that listing any target can be a privacy/security problem.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg