Case study... Well-known MTAs and SA itself allow (do not reject, do not flag) e-mails with absent or empty "To" header.
If I receive one such snail mail, I know it is not for me, and I know it is unwanted commercial advertisement that fills the mailbox and litters the floor. RFC 822, page 42, section C.3.4: << A message must contain at least one destination address field. "To" and "CC" are required to contain at least one address.>> The similar constraint does not seem to occur in RFC 5321 and RFC 5322. We reject e-mail with a missing recipient, based upon common sense and RFC 822. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 22:47, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. <amitch...@isipp.com> wrote: >> > I know the definition of spam is very subjective and dependent on your >> > particular the mail flow along with the expectations of the recipients. > >> > Back when I was in-house counsel at MAPS, Paul (Vixie) and I came up with >> > this definition of spam: "An electronic message is "spam" IF: (1) the >> > recipient’s personal identity and context are irrelevant because the >> > message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND (2) >> > the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and >> > still-revocable permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and >> > reception of the message appears to the recipient to give a >> > disproportionate benefit to the sender." I think that it still holds up. >> > Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM >> > Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant >> > CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Legal Counsel: >> > The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, Cal. >> > Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, >> > Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, >> > Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School >> > of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
