They can say something along these lines: "Rejected by local policy. Although
e-mails to undisclosed recipients are allowed by RFC-822, the same does not
mandate their acceptance."
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:33 PM, David B Funk
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, A. Schu
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, A. Schulze wrote:
Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
And it still explicitly says that construct is legal:
rfc5322:3.4
Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
On 27.10.17 16:08, A. Schulze wrote:
... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
irelevant, the group addresses are still valid:
group = display-name ":" [group-list] ";" [CF
Am 27.10.2017 um 07:15 schrieb @lbutlr:
> RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
... which is obsoleted by RFC 5322 and updated some other RFCs
see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
On 25 Oct 2017, at 08:29, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> Reading RFC 822 again, I spotted the endorsement for the case at hand.
> The named header is compliant to the standard, as quoted below.
RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.
--
Apple broke AppleScripting signatures in Mail.app, so no r
Reading RFC 822 again, I spotted the endorsement for the case at hand.
The named header is compliant to the standard, as quoted below.
However, the same standard does not compel a server to accept e-mail
sent to undisclosed recipients: we are free to reject it by local policy.
6.2.6. MULTIP
