Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious

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