Re: header-munging

[[e-mail]]

On Aug 7, 12:29pm, Randall C. Gellens wrote:
> Subject: Re: header-munging
> On 07 Aug 1996 11:33:39 -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 06 Aug 1996 15:16:35 PDT, "Randall C. Gellens" said:
> > > Examples of clients which fail to
> > > produce Message-ID and/or proper Date
> > > headers are everywhere, as are
> > > examples of servers which munge messages
> > > (often all messages) in an attempt to fix them.
> >
> > So what you're saying is that we should trust the people who wrote the
> > broken MUAs to update them, and get *that* correct, when they can't
> > get the *current* RFC's implemented correctly?
>
> I'm saying to MUA writers who, for whatever reason, feel they can't
> generate proper Message-ID, Date, or other headers, to please give the
> MTA permission to fix the message.
>
> Knowing that a message is being submitted allows an MTA to do more than
> fix obviously broken headers.  It can do other replacements/editing that
> may be needed for messages which go outside the company, for example.

Why can't the MTA do the fixup anyway?  sendmail has been doing this
for years, and I'm not aware of any problems its caused.

Indeed, that's one of the features of our configuration of the server,
it fixes up headers to be correct and useful.  Adding/fixing date,
message-id, and addresses are part of the service.

Adding a set of negotations to the protocol doesn't add anything, IMHO,
except unnecessary complexity.  What is the MTA to do if the client doesn't
give permission?  Pass on a broken message that violates the RFC?

	Mark