[Top] [All Lists]

Interaction between redirect and editheader

2007-02-08 04:35:10

Philip Guenther wrote:

e.g. as applied to the 'editheader' mandate that
   if an error terminates processing of the script, the original
   message header MUST be used when doing the implicit keep required by
   [SIEVE] section 2.10.6.
where I think it could be argued that such an added "Received" line
would be valuable to preserve.

In the context of 'editheader', I think it's clear that "the original message" just means "the message as it was before any addheader or deleteheader actions were processed". If you disagree about that being clear, well, suggest text for editheader...

I would just remind people that WGLC for editheader has ended as well. Cyrus and I are planning to request its publication next week.

So at this point we need specific text.

but that doesn't affect this discussion of 3028bis.

The new language that "Received headers MUST be preserved" also implies
that the removal of any Received headers via an extension (e.g.
'editheader') must be ignored for the redirect.  Is that the intent?

I don't think this was the intent.

 I dunno whether I think that's good -- I probably do, but it certainly
means more special-case work for me :)

An excellent question, but again, one that should be raised against editheader and not 3028bis.

(I'm not sure either what the Right Thing is. I'll note that editheader could override 3028bis, just as body overrides variables.

Indeed. It is somewhat difficult to put normative requirements on future document (or in this case on a document that gets published later).

The key procedural requirement, I think, would be the inclusion of "Updates: 3028bis" on the title page of editheader.

Yes, go for it! :-)