[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Empty 5322.From address or 5322.From address containing <>
On 4/16/2010 1:28 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
On 04/16/2010 10:02 AM, Sonneveld, Rolf wrote:
in the header of the notification mail. Please note: the above From is
the header From (5322.From), not the envelope From (5321.From). Are the
above From: header lines valid according to RFC822/2822/5322?
I've seen a lot of other invalid hacks, too. The only one I've seen
that's syntactically legal is From: ""@, which may have syntax going
for it, but I do find it somewhat lacking in charm.
It seems to me they are not valid, as from RFC5322 I get the impression
that a From address at least should contain an "@" and a localpart and a
domainname, and even if localpart and domainname would be allowed to be
empty, there's still the "@" sign...
The localpart can be empty (IMO that's highly inadvisable, but it is
I'm not seeing it allowed in the ABNF:
addr-spec = local-part "@" domain
local-part = dot-atom / quoted-string / obs-local-part
dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)
dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]