Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks

On Mon January 31 2005 16:35, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 
> In <[email protected]> Bruce Lilly <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> >On Sat January 29 2005 04:23, Hector Santos wrote:

> >No, MTAs are not supposed to alter the message content except
> >to add trace fields (Received, Return-Path).  MSAs are permitted
> >to make specific modifications.
> 
> Have you ever tried sending a message with no Message-ID through sendmail?

Sendmail acts as an MSA; what's your point (if you have one)?
  
> >> Technically, a message needs no headers at all.
> 
> >No, a message must have a message header, and that message
> >header must have at least one header field.  See RFC 822
> >section 4.1, RFC 2822 sections 3.5 & 3.6, and RFC 2046
> >section 5.2.1.
> 
> I see nothing in those places that requires "at least one header field"
> except for the provision that certain header fields are not optional, and
> hence must be present.

Duh.

> But since you seem prepared to reduce the number of 
> required header fields, then you are in no position to object when Hector
> suggests the possibility of reducing them to zero.

He did not "suggest[...] the possibility"; he flatly (and incorrectly)
claimed that none were needed.  But, I suppose this is just another
instance of the (in)famous Lindsey reading comprehension problem
rearing its head.

> And RFC 2046 section 5.2.1 says nothing about headers of messages.

It addresses MIME-part headers.
 
> >If that's an SMTP question, yes, because SMTP transfers
> >messages, and the message format (822/2822) requires a
> >header with certain fields.
> 
> False premise, leading to false conclusion.

Excuse me?