Mail headers

ucbvax!works

unread,

Mar 12, 1982, 6:24:58 AM3/12/82

to

>From COMSAT.SoftArts@Mit-Multics Thu Mar 11 19:52:30 1982
Local: Jan Walker <JWalker@Bbna>,WorkS at Mit-Ai
Via: Mit-Ai; 11 Mar 82 22:10-EDT
Via: Brl-Bmd; 11 Mar 82 22:21-EDT

Mail-From: BRL
Received-Date: 9-Mar-82 1801-EST
Date: 8 Mar 1982 19:39:34-PST
From: research!bart at Ucb-C70
Via: Mit-Ai; 9 Mar 82 17:32-EDT
Brl-Bmd; 9 Mar 82 17:52-EDT

This is really a message for header-people, but the problem is
NOT with the sender not having a TO field. The "to" field
bears not the slightest relationship except by pure coincidence
with the destinee (how's that for a word?). It is the
responsibility of your mail server to mark the letter with the
intended recipient before mixing it in your mailbox with other
mail for other recipients. If you want to know what mailing
list it was intended for, the "to" field is nice as a comment,
but that is about it.

Sorry about the flaming, but this has been something I have
been complaining about for years. At least (as has been
pointed out in another reply) RFC-733 recognizes the
uselessness of the "to" field once a letter has been sent.

ucbvax!works

unread,

Mar 14, 1982, 7:49:02 PM3/14/82

to

>From JWALKER@Bbna Wed Mar 10 06:49:21 1982
I like to know under what pretense mail has arrived in my mail
box. A message with the following headers arrived yesterday. It
does not have a To: field. I have no idea how it got to me. The
reason I am complaining to this list is that other mail that has
arrived via BRL has proved to be addressed to WorkS. So long as
this mail is arriving via Arpanet, I want standard Arpanet
headers on it. Thanks for your cooperation.

ucbvax!works

unread,

Mar 14, 1982, 8:03:49 PM3/14/82

to

>From Aaai-Office@Sumex-Aim Wed Mar 10 09:39:43 1982
In response to the message sent 10 Mar 1982 0856-EST from JWALKER at Bbna

Amen. I too am being copied on these messages. The
fact is if these messages were anything other than tedious
and soporific it wouldn't be so bad -- no spicy inside
dope or insider scam.

Whoever is sending these messages should double check the
mail program at their facility. Something, somewhere is
getting garbled and throwing a bunch of us into your
loop.

Thanks.

AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM
-------

ucbvax!works

unread,

Mar 14, 1982, 9:17:44 PM3/14/82

to

>From JSOL@Usc-Eclc Wed Mar 10 11:47:55 1982
I'm afraid there's nothing I can do. If you wish to complain to ARPA,
I'm sure they'd be willing to unplug UCB-C70 from the ARPANET or force
them to stop using UCB-C70 as a UUCP gateway, but unfortunately since
UUCP is not an official network, they can do what they please. You
might want to switch to the digest if you truly are offended.

--JSol

ucbvax!works

unread,

Mar 14, 1982, 9:26:53 PM3/14/82

to

>From Lepreau@Utah-20 Wed Mar 10 12:04:12 1982
I share your displeasure at having to guess the intended audience of a
message, but I'm afraid that message DOES conform to Arpanet standards.
Only the Date: and From: fields are required by RFC733, and I don't
think that portion of the RFC has been modified.
-------

ucbvax!works

unread,

Mar 15, 1982, 12:56:08 AM3/15/82

to

>From JWALKER@Bbna Wed Mar 10 19:58:32 1982
Sure. It makes perfect sense not to @i[require] the To: field,
for example, in applications where you are just filing the
message, rather than actually sending it. This is a case,
however, where the spirit of the law demands some indication of
the auspices under which the mail is arriving even if the letter
of the law does not. Note that RFC733 tried to make that the
case by requiring the From field. Unfortunately in the big
public mailing list world, the From: information does not make
that identification and the To: field would.