Article View: comp.mail.headers
Article #449Re: overuse of Received: headers
From: dave
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1987 19:13
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1987 19:13
23 lines
1657 bytes
1657 bytes
In one article, ghoti#@andrew.cmu.edu (Adam Stoller) writes:
>The Received headers are valuable tools to be able to determine where
>messages have been and when they were there - I would hate to lose this
>information as it has come in handy more than once for us to determine where
And in another article, campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes:
>I also would like to keep the "Received:" headers. Mail to us is often
>delayed, and it's useful to know where the holdup is...
>Please retain the "Received:" headers.
Both of these articles miss my point. I accept that Received: headers
are useful. I suggest they are overused, however (as well as being
longer than they need to). Specifically, I suggested that they are
not necessary at the SENDING site (since there's a Date: field) and
at the RECEIVING site (since there's a delivery agent timestamp such
as the UUCP From_ line).
Would the implementors/maintainers of sendmail, smail et al. please
consider the above?
David Sherman
--
{ seismo!mnetor cbosgd!utgpu watmath decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1761@lsuc.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!lsuc!daveReferences:
<8UVxtLy00UkSdSw0Co@andrew.cmu.edu> <900@maynard.BSW.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!lsuc!dave From: dave@lsuc.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: overuse of Received: headers Message-ID: <1761@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 30-Apr-87 15:13:42 EDT Article-I.D.: lsuc.1761 Posted: Thu Apr 30 15:13:42 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 1-May-87 02:30:09 EDT References: <8UVxtLy00UkSdSw0Co@andrew.cmu.edu> <900@maynard.BSW.COM> Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 23 Summary: I said overuse, not use!