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?
RFC2821 is quite clear that software should not be doing it but should instead
add additional set of Resent-* header lines [aka headers] to the top of the
message.
The reason Pine renames Received- fields is in order to remain compatible
with RFC 822, which does not support multiple sequential re-sendings of
the same message.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
SOUTH UTSIRE: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7, INCREASING GALE 8 FOR A TIME. RAIN OR SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.