I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To From and Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language description. Such fields MUST hold addresses, were an address is a username the "@" symbol and a domain name. The string "undisclosed recipients: ;" does not parse the grammar, and it does not pass the natural language requirement for an address. If the sender hides the recipients, why should I care delivering its junk to my valued accounts?
Bear in mind the state of corruption we live in. Spam is also a business, and the RFC proposed revisions are adapting to such business, to allow for it instead of impeding it. On the subject length, although the RFC standard did not foresee the abuse, it did speak about the intended purpose of the field. If it does not fit the one line of 78 (ASCII) characters, it bounches back to the sender. I understand that sloppy e-mail software allows spammers to send the library of congress inside a subject field, but rest assured that I such abuses do not survive my filters, even if Trump himself will allow for it with a presidential decree. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 02:57:06 -0500 Ruga <r...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > To: undisclosed recipients: ; > The To header is not RFC compliant. Yes it is. RFC 5322 even gives the header Cc: undisclosed recipients: ; as an example in Appendix A.1.3, Group Addresses. > The Subject header exceeds the > maximum line length, being another RFC constraints. Nope. It's around 720 characters, less than the 998 maximum. And while it's true that it's not wrapped at 78 characters, that's a SHOULD requirement, not a MUST requirement. Anyway, we see a few of these every so often. Bayes usually disposes of them quite handily. Regards, Dianne.
