[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More references in 2821bis

2007-04-02 16:04:34

At 20:06 +0200 on 04/02/2007, Frank Ellermann wrote about Re: More references in 2821bis:

Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

 I seem to remember that it ALSO needed the absence of a Cc header
 to trigger this injected listing.

Plausible, maybe RFC 2076 just didn't mention this detail.  RFC 2821
7.2 doesn't discuss any details, and RFC 3552 is only a copy
of RFC 2821 7.2.

Somebody on the EAI list got me to dig out a stoneage bat book, with
that at hand I find:

 <time travel=1994>
| If the header of a mail message lacks all recipient information
| (lacks all of the To:, Cc:, Bcc: header lines), sendmail adds an
| Apparently-To: header line and puts the recipient's address in
| from the envelope into the field of that line.  This behaviour
| is hardcoded into sendmail.
| The Apparently-To header name is not defined in RFC822.  It is
| added by sendmail because RFC822 requires at least one To: or Cc:
| header, and neither is present.

Trying to fix missing header fields by adding a different header
field was a rather odd idea... <g>   And "apparently" it did not an
Apparently-To when there was (only) a Bcc, but it stripped the Bcc,
again arriving at no RFC822 recipient at all.  Oh well...  And I'll
fix my header field name review request, thanks for your hint.


You're welcome. I tend to be a nit-picker and tend to want to see details of this type accurate.

My memory that a Cc would suppress the injection of the header, seems to be borne out by that quote above. As to the Bcc, it was/is normally never sent by the MUA (although some did, if I remember) but was only used to Mail-To list that was passed on by the MUA.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>