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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > In article <6464.1595370330@localhost> you write:
    >> If the message goes through "mailman" or some other processor, then it seems
    >> like it ought to rip pretty much every X-FOO out.  The rest of them ought to
    >> be known headers at the time the processor was written, and it ought to
    >> either know what they are, or it does not, in which case, it shouldn't pass
    >> on things it does not know about.

    > 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.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [