Re: empty quoted strings and other oddities

ned+ietf-822@mrochek.com Mon, 07 October 2002 16:57 UTC

Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g97GvOW13181 for ietf-822-bks; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g97GvNv13177 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01KNDN3KLAO000628S@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf-822@imc.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf-822@mrochek.com
Subject: Re: empty quoted strings and other oddities
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:41:32 +0000 (GMT)" <H3Lux8.9BK@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: ietf-822@imc.org
Message-id: <01KNDO3BOV7600628S@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <200210011513.g91FDk027592@astro.cs.utk.edu> <002001c26a0f$f05437a0$b7880fce@alice> <20021002163610.C1650@melkebalanse.gulbrandsen.priv.no> <3D9CCC8B.4010904@alex.blilly.com> <p0510031db9c2ed7c528f@[130.237.161.114]> <H3Lux8.9BK@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-ietf-822@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-822.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

> In <p0510031db9c2ed7c528f@[130.237.161.114]> Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> writes:

> >In early mail systems, it was allowed to specify a
> >recipient address with only the local name. This would
> >then default to the sender's domain. Thus,

> >From: John@duckville.org
> >To: Mary

> >would default to

> >From: John@duckville.org
> >To: Mary@duckville.org

> >This is not allowed any more, but some local UA-MTA
> >might still allow this technique.

> Are you sure this is not allowed? My local UA-MTA (dtmail-sendmail)
> certainly allows if, and sendmail.cf automatically cleans it up before
> letting it be seen in the outside world.

Do not confuse the myriad illegal formats allowed and fixed up by sendmail
(or most any other MTA for that matter) with 

> The incomplete form never gets seen on any "wire". So is any standard
> violated in that case?

There's considerable value in having a standardized submission protocol in
addition to having a standardized transfer protocol. RFC 2476 provided the
first step along this path.

				Ned