How odd, in a mailing list of spam fighters someone really wants me to accept junk mail.
In the snail mail box, we put in the trashcan everything that does not carry a recipient address. Guess what? We do the same with e-mail. And we are happy about it. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:33:49 -0500 Ruga <r...@protonmail.com> wrote: > I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. No you don't. You follow your misunderstanding of the actual standard. RFC822 permits group syntax. It's right in the ABNF. Learn to read carefully. Here's a hint, taken directly from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0822.txt address = mailbox ; one addressee / group ; named list group = phrase ":" [#mailbox] ";" > The To From and Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural > language description. Such fields MUST hold addresses, Wrong. > Bear in mind the state of corruption we live in. I know. It's awful that would-be pedants don't even read properly. > On the subject length, although the RFC standard did not foresee the > abuse, it did speak about the intended purpose of the field. If it > does not fit the one line of 78 (ASCII) characters, it bounches back > to the sender. Well, you know, for someone who only follows STANDARDS, you're making stuff up. There's no mention whatsoever of line length limits in the STANDARD RFC 822. Those are only in the proposed revisions, which you disdain. Or are you selective about picking and choosing from proposed revisions? Oh and by the way, I certainly hope your mail server does not speak ESMTP. That's not a standard, you know. > I understand that sloppy e-mail software allows > spammers to send the library of congress inside a subject field, but > rest assured that I such abuses do not survive my filters, even if > Trump himself will allow for it with a presidential decree. Hey, you do you. You can do whatever you want with your mail, but claiming it's in the name of RFC compliance is alternatively factual. Regards, Dianne.
