Re: Empty 5322.From address or 5322.From address containing <>

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?

No.

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 legal).

Arnt