[Mimedefang] SMTP Header Syntax question

[Cormack, Ken]

> > The arg being passed (to a sendmail rule that we have) indicates that
the
> > HEADER "To:" line has incorrect syntax as follows:
>
> > 	user1 at domain,user2 at domain,user3 at domain

> The sendmail rule is not correct.  I think that header is
> perfectly fine, and a cursory reading of RFC 2822 indicates that an
> address list doesn't have to have spaces.

Thanks to all who replied to my question.  For reference, here is the
sendmail rule I have been using.  It comes from Phil McMahon's antispam
rulesets, at http://www.doorbot.com/guides/sendmail/antispam/

What bothers me is that this particular rule has been "happy" for many
years, and now suddenly chokes on one given sender's messages.
Unfortunately, there is nothing surprising, but also nothing revealing, to
be had in the actual rule.  The emails in question were hitting the trigger
that gives the "HTo: specified an invalid address" message, and the "arg1="
reported in my logs showed all the addresses ganged up as in my original
post, which led me to think sendmail 8.13.8 wasn't seeing the recipients as
a "list", but rather, as a single unparsable address.

HTo:	$>CheckTo
SCheckTo
# Translate user at host.com (Full Name) to user at host.com
R$* ( $* ) $*	$: $1
# Translate Full Name <user at host.com> to user at host.com
R$* < $* > $*	$: $2
# Set focus
R$*			$: <$1>
R<$+ @ $+ . $->	$: $1@$2.$3
R<$+>			$: <$1> <$&{client_name}>
R<$+> < localhost >	$@ OK
R<$+> <$*>		$: <$1>
R<$+>			$#error $: "553 Delivery blocked; HTo: specified an
invalid address"
R<$@>			$#error $: "553 Delivery blocked; HTo: specified a
null address"

Since there's really nothing to be gained by keeping this one rule, that
cant be stopped by others, I'll run without it.

Thanks again, all who replied.

Ken