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

[John R Levine <[e-mail]>]

Also, can we return to the bit you snipped out?

What problem is addressed by removing junk mail headers?

Given that our time is limited, I would prefer not to spin our wheels on 
non-problems.

R's,
Joh

>    > 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.