Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!don.provan@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
From: don.provan@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: smtp, errors and delivery
Message-ID: <05Mar84.125014.DP0N@CMU-CS-A>
Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 12:50:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.365
Posted: Mon Mar  5 12:50:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 04:32:29 EST
References: <05Mar84.111651.EN0C@CMU-CS-A>
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 18
To: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A
Cc: Mark Crispin , Header-People@MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: <05Mar84.111651.EN0C@CMU-CS-A>

Rudy,
	Look at your example: your mailer is all set to reject the
mail altogether because it doesn't like "bonzo_land".  How can you
be upset about the remote mailer sending you a blank field?  Its
first priority is to get the mail delivered.  If you're going to
reject the only from address it has, what else can it do?  You aren't
going to return an error message there anyway.
	I don't really understand why mail receivers are parsing this
field so carefully, anyway.  I've had several sites i couldn't get mail
to because they tried to parse '"Provan Don%c"@LLL-MFE' and couldn't,
so they rejected the mail.  Its bad enbough that they can't parse
it, but to reject some mail because a field that shouldn't ever
get used can't be parsed is silly.  I wasn't smart enough to think
of sending an empty address if it wouldn't take my real address,
but now that it's been suggested, I think I'll add it.
	Frankly, I think the only legal error to a mail command
should be "too busy to send mail now."  I don't think it makes
sense to reject it because of a syntax error.