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).