🚀 go-pugleaf

>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.