barf. the last thing we need is for agents to start renaming headers.
I'm afraid we've had that for some time. For example, if I recall
correctly, Pine renames "resent-" header lines if you resend the
message
again.
which is a good example of why renaming header fields doesn't work very
well. we don't need to rename received fields, why do we need to
rename other fields?
(actually, resent doesn't work very well. but it's rarely a problem as
long as it is only used for its intended purpose. unfortunately people
keep trying to redefine the meaning of resent-* and other fields, most
recently to accommodate various shortsighted anti-spam schemes)
Incidentally, one of these days we should perhaps bring the
specification's terminology in line with what everybody actually uses.
Pretty well everybody, when they write "header" mean a single header
line (as you seem to above). The RFC actually calls this a "header
field":
yup. I do try to use "header field" like the RFC says, but sometimes I
slip and abbreviate this to "header". fortunately, it's usually not a
problem to distinguish between "header" as used to mean "header field",
and "header" as used to mean "entire header" from context.
OTOH, "header line" seems ambiguous to me - I think you must mean
something _besides_ header field because you're not using either
"header field" or the common abbreviation "header". :)