Search the Archives

RFC 2822: Not having a requirement for the "To:" field is ridiculous.I...

Reader comments:

Comment by kbrogers@tinkertoys.net
Submitted on 6/13/2004
Related RFC: RFC 2822
Rating: Not yet rated	Rate this comment:
Not having a requirement for the "To:" field is ridiculous.It says nowhere in this specification that the "To:" field is required. In fact, it doesn't say that ANY destination field is required. I asked myself why (since the specification does not present a reason for this omission) and cannot come up with an answer that has a justification greater than the problems (i.e. spamming, delivery problems, etc.) it creates.In the "3.6.3 Destination address fields" section, it actually says, "If a reply is sent to a message that has destination fields, it is often desirable to send a copy..."IF?.... "IF"!?Can SOMEONE give me a reason (note the omission of the word "good") that this specification overlooks the need to require at least one destination address?

FAQS.ORG makes no guarantees as to the accuracy of the posts. Each post is the personal opinion of the poster. These posts are not intended to substitute for medical, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. FAQS.ORG does not endorse any opinion or any product or service mentioned mentioned in these posts.

<< Back to: RFC 2822