Hector Santos wrote:
Unless there is some other different notation I am unaware of,
it is *not* a valid RFC 2822 message.
Of course it is, the body is optional, see 2822 ch. 3.5:
| message = (fields / obs-fields) [CRLF body]
there are lot of code that search for the first "\r\n\r\n" to
find the header/body separator, i.e, strstr(buffer, "\r\n\r\n")
If they don't find this there's no body, that's ugly but allowed.
It's the way how spam probes end up as "empty" mails, the spammer
sends C DATA
S 3xx end with dot
C .
S 2xx got mail for valid address
The user sees the Return-Path, a timestamp line, an artificial
2822-From derived from the Return-Path, and an artificial Date
(typically the same as in the timestamp). And maybe also an
artificial Message-ID, plus an empty Bcc.
But there is a body. It has a dot.
No, Charles transcript is the DATA, a real dot would appear as
<CRLF>..<CRLF> in this style. A single dot is the end of DATA.
I don't care about the canonicalization of spam probes or other
mails without body, but the issue is no nonsense.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html