On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 09:45:12PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 2022 Apr 15, at 16:53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
> >
> >> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with
> >> no email address in it at all,
> >
> > Thi
On 2022 Apr 15, at 16:53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with
>> no email address in it at all,
>
> This violates RFC5322 and earlier versions.
No it does not.
> The "To:" h
On 16/04/2022 10.53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with
>> no email address in it at all,
>
> This violates RFC5322 and earlier versions. The "To:" header must
> contain at l
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:06:35 +0200
Tinne11 wrote:
>
> > Am 15.04.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat
> > <400the...@gmx.ch>:
> >
> > Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
>
>
> RFC 5322 says: "The only required header fields are the origination
> date field and
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with
> no email address in it at all,
This violates RFC5322 and earlier versions. The "To:" header must
contain at least one address (or group).
https://datatracker.ie
> On 2022 Apr 15, at 07:30, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On 2022-04-15 10:47, Bernardo Reino wrote:
>
>> Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no To: header (or
>> have one with "undisclosed-recipients").
>
> bcc does not remove or add to
No, and that's not what what said. However
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2022-04-15 10:47, Bernardo Reino wrote:
Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no To: header (or
have one with "undisclosed-recipients").
bcc does not remove or add to
I didn't say that :)
(maybe the "so they have no.." implied so
On 2022-04-15 10:47, Bernardo Reino wrote:
Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no To: header (or
have one with "undisclosed-recipients").
bcc does not remove or add to
So I'd be careful with rejecting/filtering only based on that.
spammers does not know all that details :=)
On 2022-04-15 08:49, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in
the email header.
The header has "X-Original-To:" and "Delivered-To:", but no "to:" line.
I have pasted the header here: https://ctxt.io/2/AABg30FRFQ
How could I block such e
Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 02:21:46 li...@lazygranch.com pisze:
>
> The header doesn't look odd because the mailing list provides a TO
> field.
No, it doesn't. I don't see any "To:" field in the headers of Tinne11's
message. I do see a "Cc:" field, but not "To:".
And referring to the original quest
On 15/04/22 6:49 pm, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in
the email header.
The header has "X-Original-To:" and "Delivered-To:", but no "to:" line.
I have pasted the header here: https://ctxt.io/2/AABg30FRFQ
How could I block such em
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:06:35 +0200
Tinne11 wrote:
Am 15.04.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat
<400the...@gmx.ch>:
Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
RFC 5322 says: "The only required header fields are the o
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:06:35 +0200
Tinne11 wrote:
>
> > Am 15.04.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat
> > <400the...@gmx.ch>:
> >
> > Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
>
>
> RFC 5322 says: "The only required header fields are the origination
> date field and
> Am 15.04.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat <400the...@gmx.ch>:
>
> Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
RFC 5322 says: "The only required header fields are the origination date field
and the originator address field(s).", i. e. the "Date:" and the "From:" head
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in
the email header.
[...]
Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no To: header (or have one
with "und
dred Thecat
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. April 2022 08:49
An: Postfix users
Betreff: spam emails with "to:" line missing
Hello,
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in the
email header.
The header has "X-Original-To:" and "Delivered-
Hello,
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in
the email header.
The header has "X-Original-To:" and "Delivered-To:", but no "to:" line.
I have pasted the header here: https://ctxt.io/2/AABg30FRFQ
How could I block such emails? Can I use header-check for this?
17 matches
Mail list logo
