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