On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 10:05:20AM -0400, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote: | > > | FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS: This rule misfired on a few emails that were | > > | legitimately sent BCC. | > > | > > Was this an outhouse bug? ( 'To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>' -- not a | > > valid header per RFC (2)822) | > > | > > I haven't checked the rule itself, BTW. | > | > Yes. It was in the form 'To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>'. | | I have registered this one on Bugzilla as bug #517. Here is an example of | headers from such a message sent from Outlook Express: ... | To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> ...
That is NOT a valid email messge, per RFCs 822 and 2822.
The specification for an address is given in section 6 of RFC 822 (or
Appendix D), and section 3.4 of RFC 2822. Notice that a "group" does
*not* have angle brackets around it. Not surprisingly, the outhouse
isn't generating (valid) internet email.
Interestingly enough, section A.1.3 in RFC 2822 gives an example of
how to create a Bcc message :
----
From: Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: A Group:Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED],John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Cc: Undisclosed recipients:;
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1969 23:32:54 -0330
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Testing.
----
In this message, the "To:" field has a single group recipient named A
Group which contains 3 addresses, and a "Cc:" field with an empty
group recipient named Undisclosed recipients.
The FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS rule will not trigger on that message.
I guess I personally don't care much what you do about that rule
because my exim setup will reject any syntactically incorrect message
before SA even sees it.
-D
--
Pride only breeds quarrels,
but wisdom is found in those who take advice.
Proverbs 13:10
http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/
msg07080/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
