php.net |  support |  documentation |  report a bug |  advanced search |  search howto |  statistics |  random bug |  login
Request #44170 mail() function arguments ambiguity
Submitted: 2008-02-19 14:39 UTC Modified: 2011-02-21 20:49 UTC
From: marijn at monomelodies dot nl Assigned:
Status: Open Package: Mail related
PHP Version: 5.2.6 OS: *
Private report: No CVE-ID: None
Welcome back! If you're the original bug submitter, here's where you can edit the bug or add additional notes.
If you forgot your password, you can retrieve your password here.
Password:
Status:
Package:
Bug Type:
Summary:
From: marijn at monomelodies dot nl
New email:
PHP Version: OS:

 

 [2008-02-19 14:39 UTC] marijn at monomelodies dot nl
Description:
------------
The docs for the mail() function state the first parameter ($to) as being obligatory. They also state that "the formatting of this string must comply with ? RFC 2822".
This would lead me to expect that passing a string not containing a valid address would cause a warning or at least a notice. This isn't so.
While technically I'm fairly sure this is correct behaviour (AFAICT RFC 2822 states that either To, Cc or Bcc should be included, so leaving *out* To shouldn't be a problem and in fact isn't, and non-email addresses are also supported) the docs suggest that under PHP it is in fact illegal.
I would expect that passing NULL or an empty string would result in the entire To: field being omitted in the headers (it's now in fact empty, which doesn't seem to conform to RFC 2822 which says that if you *do* include any such header it should contain a comma-separated list of at *least* 1 address). Whether or not a notice should follow something that doesn't appear to be an emailaddress is a matter for debate - I'd personally leave regexing to the users of the function, but then the manual isn't correct.

So, actually it's something of a bug/feature in the mail() function as well I believe, and passing NULL as the first parameter should cause the To-header to be omitted.
But since including a To-header seems like good form mostly the docs are, I feel, somewhat incomplete in this respect.

Reproduce code:
---------------
<?php

mail(
        NULL,
        'test',
        NULL,
        <<<EOT
Bcc: marijn@monomelodies.nl

test

EOT
);

Expected result:
----------------
Depending on how you feel about $to being obligatory, either a better-formed email being sent, or a notice or even warning thrown by PHP.

Actual result:
--------------
[...snip...]
To:           <-- violates RFC 2822
Subject: test

test

Patches

Pull Requests

History

AllCommentsChangesGit/SVN commitsRelated reports
 [2011-02-21 20:49 UTC] jani@php.net
-Package: Feature/Change Request +Package: Mail related -Operating System: irrelevant +Operating System: *
 [2011-03-17 18:07 UTC] anrdaemon at freemail dot ru
IMO, the mail() "to" parameter should represent mail envelope RCPT-TO value, not the mail "To" header. And should never be substituted into header "To:" field if it not defined by user.
Else it defeats the use of mail() function, when you are writing, i.e., a mailing list handler.
 
PHP Copyright © 2001-2024 The PHP Group
All rights reserved.
Last updated: Thu Oct 31 23:01:28 2024 UTC