Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks

On Mon January 31 2005 16:27, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 
> In <[email protected]> Bruce Lilly <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> >On Fri January 28 2005 11:07, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> >> 1. Is it really necessary to modify RFC 822 and well as RFC 2822?
> 
> >Yes.
> 
> Why?

RFC 2026.
 
> As clearly stated in the "Scope" section on RFC 2822, the "Internet
> Message Format" applies first and foremost to "electronic mail".

That is not what RFC 2822 says; it speaks of a "framework", using
language that has remained unchanged from RFC 822, RFC 733, etc.,
several of which predate adoption of the message format by other
RFCs (e.g. 850).

> >That is certainly possible via a number of existing mechanisms
> >(From field with an "effective and useful for replies" [RFC 2821
> >section 3.8.4] mailbox, a standard Comments or Organization (for
> >Usenet specifically) field w/o a  mailbox, or indication in the
> >body of the message), or an extension field which is not an
> >address field could be defined.
> 
> Very droll. I presume those are not intended to be serious suggestions.

RFC 2821 is part of the core Internet protocol suite, and
its section 3.8.4 requirements are indeed serious.
 
> But can you
> point to some realistic scenario (or, better, some actual MUA) in which
> something might actually break if such a modified header were to arrive at
> an agent?

See RFC 2821 section 3.8.4.

> Of course, one
> successful experiment does not prove very much.

To be precise, it proves nothing of consequence.