At 5:33 AM -0500 2/10/1997, Christopher Samuel wrote:
>Unfortunately not, as RFC822 does not require a To: header. It says:
This statement conflicts with the quote below.
> Note that the "Bcc" field may be empty, while the "To" field
> is required to have at least one address.
Recent versions of sendmail go to great lengths to make sure that
we have multiple options available to us in making sure that all
messages passing through our system are legal, which is what happens
when a header of the form "To: undisclosed-recipients;" gets added
(using standard list syntax).
However, this patch will also nail any legitimate mail that comes
to your system from a broken sender, which is the original problem
sendmail is trying to solve (and it's obviously a large enough
problem that Eric has devoted a significant amount of time to the
effort).
For that reason, I don't believe this patch will ever make it
into the official version -- there's just too much chance you'll nuke
a real message instead of a fake one, and the not-quite-so-stupid
junkmailers will easily detect that their junkmail is being dropped
on the floor (or rejected), and get around it quickly.
You would then be in the highly undesirable position where you're
dropping real mail on the floor, and not noticably reducing the
junkmail quotient by any measurable amount.
--
Brad Knowles, MIME/PGP: brad@his.com
comp.mail.sendmail FAQ Maintainer <http://www.his.com/~brad/>
finger brad@his.com for my PGP Public Keys and Geek Code
The comp.mail.sendmail FAQ is at <http://www.his.com/~brad/sendmail/>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
