On Tue May 31 2005 15:16, David MacQuigg wrote:
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
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.
What I said was that there is no guarantee of order, and I cited
RFC 2822 (and could also have cited RFC 2046 section 5.2, last
paragraph) which explicitly notes that reordering in fact occurs.
I'm new to this list, so it wasn't clear to me that this is one of those
I didn't categorize the topic per se as a rathole, and I note that
that's not all that Keith mentioned. I'll leave it at that.
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,
In spite of it being pointed out several times, you have again made
the error of equating RFC 2822 compliance (FWIW) with "not re-order
headers [sic]". One last time; "SHOULD" is not a compliance requirement,
it is merely a recommendation. If you didn't get the message with a
direct quote and referral to BCP 14 for the meaning of "SHOULD", it is
inconceivable that the concept would have sunk in with "a less 'forceful'"
pointer to the facts.
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.
You have been told about as plainly as possible that you are unlikely
to see specifics because of NDAs. And your response has been to say
"nobody answered" and -- having complained of a bruised ego after
what appears to have been very professional responses to your messages --
accusing others with "this is FUD".
The simple matter is that you have been told that your assumption of
particular ordering is invalid, you have been provided with documentation
in the form of IETF specifications (RFCs) which clearly and distinctly
say so, you have been assured that in fact reordering is known to have
taken place, and you have been told why you are unlikely to be provided
with an example. Yet you persist with an insistence that there is some
requirement forbidding reordering. One gets the impression that you're
just not listening.