Re: "Header Reordering", yet again

At 01:33 PM 5/31/2005 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> On Tue May 31 2005 12:34, David MacQuigg wrote:
>
> > Nobody answered my challenge to provide an example of a big forwarder that
> > re-orders headers, so I'm coming to the conclusion that this is FUD.
>
> Funny, my conclusion is that many people have taken Keith Moore's
> suggestion: http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg01559.html
You raised this topic with your out-of-context quote from RFC-2822, and the 
implication that that header reordering is a big problem, something that 
would stop any reliance on header order.
I'm new to this list, so it wasn't clear to me that this is one of those 
"rathole" topics.  It seemed to me that it was worth exploring, even 
pushing a little to see if there was some substance behind the claim.  I 
have my answer now, so in the future, I will just refer to this thread.
I suggest that if you raise the topic again, you do it in a less "forceful" 
way.  You could say for example - While it is common practice for MTAs to 
comply with RFC-2822, and not re-order headers, as always there are 
non-compliant systems, and we should be careful that anything we design can 
deal with those systems.
I would go even further and say re-ordering of headers by forwarders is 
very rare, but at this point I'm just guessing, so I'll keep  looking for 
any facts to the contrary.
--
Dave

************************************************************     *
* David MacQuigg, PhD     email: david_macquigg at yahoo.com     *  *
* IC Design Engineer            phone:  USA 520-721-4583      *  *  *
* Analog Design Methodologies                                 *  *  *
*                                 9320 East Mikelyn Lane       * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C.            Tucson, Arizona 85710          *
************************************************************     *