Dear all -
my understanding of section 2.3. "Body" of RFC 5322 "Internet Message
Format" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-2.3) is
that a sole 0x0a as the body is sufficient and fully RFC compliant: is
this correct?
Reason why I am asking is that have come across a stran
It appears that Bill Cole via mailop
said:
>On 2025-01-25 at 13:36:52 UTC-0500 (Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:36:52 +0100)
>Carsten Schiefner via mailop
>is rumored to have said:
>
>> Dear all -
>>
>> my understanding of section 2.3. "Body" of RFC 5322 "Internet Message
>> Format" (https://datatracker.ie
Dear all,
that took me a bit to get back to this topic - my apologies.
So there indeed has eventually been a bit of positive feedback after my
second push for the topic.
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:03:52 -0600
From: Al Iverson
Oh, I meant to reply. Not a bad idea, but also there's a lot of i
Hi Carsten,
At 10:36 AM 25-01-2025, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
my understanding of section 2.3. "Body" of RFC 5322 "Internet
Message Format"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-2.3) is that
a sole 0x0a as the body is sufficient and fully RFC compliant: is this correc
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
> my understanding of section 2.3. "Body" of RFC 5322 "Internet Message
> Format" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-2.3) is that
> a sole 0x0a as the body is sufficient and fully RFC compliant: is this
> correct?
No.
On 2025-01-25 at 13:36:52 UTC-0500 (Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:36:52 +0100)
Carsten Schiefner via mailop
is rumored to have said:
> Dear all -
>
> my understanding of section 2.3. "Body" of RFC 5322 "Internet Message Format"
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-2.3) is that a sole
On 2025-01-25 at 15:53:28 UTC-0500 (25 Jan 2025 15:53:28 -0500)
John Levine via mailop
is rumored to have said:
It appears that Bill Cole via mailop
said:
On 2025-01-25 at 13:36:52 UTC-0500 (Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:36:52 +0100)
Carsten Schiefner via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Dear all -
Dnia 25.01.2025 o godz. 15:07:43 Bill Cole via mailop pisze:
> Indifferent. a MUA sending empty mail is being used by someone not worth
> communicating with.
> OK, maybe that's a little harsh, but empty mail is rude.
Well, empty mail may be directed to some automated account, that does some
thing
