[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "Header Reordering", yet again

2005-05-31 22:03:33

At 16:33 -0400 on 05/31/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote about Re: "Header Reordering", yet again:

On Tue May 31 2005 15:51, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

 Or link them by having the ID field from the Received Header
 > replicated in the Received-SPF Header.

Been there, discussed that. The "id" component is optional.
You can't replicate what isn't there.

If you say so. I've never seen a Received Header that is missing it. In any case, I fail to see why replicating it IF IT EXISTS is worse than not using it at all since it would help to link the Received-SPF and Received Headers when some poorly designed MTA has scrambled the order of the headers that were in the message when it was handed off to the MTA instead of it just prefixing its Received (and Received-SPF) Headers to the front of the header block.

IMO, NO alteration of the header block contents of the message as it arrived at the MTA should be permissible unless it is acting as a MSA (ie: Accepting a Message from a MUA) when it should restrict its alterations to inserting a missing DATE Header (or correcting an invalid timestamp) or Message-ID Header (or other required by missing Headers).

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Robert A. Rosenberg <=