Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!stef@uci-icse.ARPA From: stef@uci-icse.ARPA (Einar Stefferud) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: reordering header lines Message-ID: <11504@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 14:54:42 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11504 Posted: Thu Jul 11 14:54:42 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 07:10:51 EDT Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 29 I think we are splitting hairs. I don't understand what informatrion gets lost if we use the following procedure going from 822 => X.400. 1. Collect all non-X400 headers, in their order of appearance (especially required for "Received" headers) and carry them into an appropriate X.400 "EnvelopePart" or "BodyPart". Perhaps these get split between "EnvelopePart" and some "BodyPart". (How might this lose information?) 2. Put the rest of the headers in the X.400 header. I am not trying to be able to debug 822 MTAs from X.400 headers, but I am trying to assure preservation of potentially useful information for recipients. I refuse to believe that we should proceed into 822 => X.400 gateway operations on the assumption that we do not need this information to assist X.400 recipients to deciepher what happened to their mail in certain interesting cases. We will need the "Received" information just as much then as we did when "Received" headers were invented in 822land, and as much as we need them now in 822land. The logical end-argument is to ask why we keep Receivced lines around if they are not worth preserving at a gateway? Why not just eliminate them altogether in 822land too? Best - Stef