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?
>
> 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).

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]

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net