Hi Tom,
Consider this 3 line test message:
From: ted@example.com
To: (foo)
Bcc: ted@example.com
`To: (foo)' is invalid on the wire IIRC
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 correctly.
nmh 1.6 however, empties out the To: header.
I wonder if there are users with `cc: (optional)' templates as a prompt.
:-)
I got the idea of using ( something here ) in the To: header as a way
of refering to a Dcc or Bcc list of addresses from:
https://serverfault.com/questions/743538/sendmail-support-of-empty-group-addresses-aka-list-syntax
IOW, sendmail's bug is not accepting an empty group address: `foo: ;'.
Would be nice if nmh would preserve the
To: (foo)
header.
Even if nmh could change to pass this to some local MTA, I don't think
it should change to preserve this in something that's meant to be RFC
5322 as it's in violation. Here's a subset of RFC 5322's grammar.
Lines are followed down and right.
to = "To:" address-list CRLF
└─address-list = (address *("," address)) / obs-addr-list
└─address = mailbox / group
├─mailbox = name-addr / addr-spec
│ ├─name-addr = [display-name] angle-addr
│ │ └─angle-addr = [CFWS] "<" addr-spec ">" [CFWS] / obs-angle-addr
│ │ ├─obs-angle-addr = [CFWS] "<" obs-route addr-spec ">" [CFWS]
│ └───┴─┴─addr-spec = local-part "@" domain
└─group = display-name ":" [group-list] ";" [CFWS]
So `to' must have a literal "@" from `addr-spec' or a literal ":" from
`group'.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
--
Nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers