Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious
2020-07-23 05:07:50
On 22/07/2020 19:55, John R Levine wrote:
> That's not gpod advice. The point of the mystery headers is to tell
> what happened to the message during its trip, and the part of
the trip
> before it hit the list manager is as important as the part
after. When
> I'm trying to figure out why something undesirable leaked
through the
> list manager, I need the original headers to figure out what
happened.
Right. You need the standard "Received:" lines, which would be a known
header at this point, so it would remain.
Really, I find the other stuff to be useful. I understand that you
don't, but you're not the only one here.
Autoresponders and list managers that snip out headers they don't
understand, particularly those that were added as part of a
belt-and-braces attempt to avoid mail loops and message amplification,
can cause problems.
Those not-described-by-RFC headers - e.g. "X-BeenThere:
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" - are not just useful for manual diagnostics, but
also for automated mitigation of operational problems.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Paul Smith
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious,
Steve Atkins <=
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Pete Resnick
|
|
|