Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site columbia.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!chris
From: chris@columbia.UUCP (Chris Maio)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up
Message-ID: <888@columbia.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 18:06:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: columbia.888
Posted: Tue Aug  6 18:06:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Aug-85 01:09:23 EDT
References: <1383@peora.UUCP> <9546@ucbvax.ARPA> <1423@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: chris@columbia.UUCP (Chris Maio)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 23

In article <1423@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
> :
> b) NEVER edit existing lines in the message header.  This doesn't mean you
> can't add lines (e.g., "Received:" lines, etc.), but you should not
> make transformations in the syntax of the addresses in the header, etc.
> [I have seen dozens of these transformations made in mail that gets
> returned to me for one reason or another; they are almost invariably WRONG.]
> The originating mailer should provide a unique and unambiguous return
> address (not path) telling who the message is from; if it doesn't, it is
> the originating mailer's problem, not yours.
> :

Header rewriting is done precisely because "originating mailers" don't
provide universally acceptable addresses.  If you don't like the way header
rewriting is done, just send mail to the postmaster at the offending site.

Would you prefer to have the site return your messages to you with the comment
"I refuse to forward your mail because your headers are unacceptable in the
destination domain"?  It would be far more constructive to suggest a standard,
reasonable set of rewriting rules and try to get everybody to follow them than
to take the easy way out and declare that header rewriting is wrong.

- chris