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 <dbf...@engineering.uiowa.edu> wrote: > 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 RFC 822 is obsolete, replaced by RFC 2822.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 ... This is done by giving a display name for > the group, followed by a colon, followed by a comma-separated list of any > number of mailboxes (including zero and one), and ending with a semicolon. > Because the list of mailboxes can be empty, using the group construct is also > a simple way to communicate to recipients that the message was sent to one or > more named sets of recipients, without actually providing the individual > mailbox address for any of those recipients. Anybody can block mail for any > reason they want ("my server, my rules"). But if they claim to do so with RFC > justification for this case, then they're playing in the realm of > "Alternative Facts" -- Dave Funk University of Iowa College of Engineering > 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center > Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527 #include Better is > not better, 'standard' is better. B{
