🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gfIR8H600WBw8UW0Na@andrew.cmu.edu> John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk ([*] M.T.Hamilton) writes:
>> This is a gross hack but it would be of practical benefit to those
>> people who are in the same position as Alasdair.
>
>No, it will not be of benefit to such people, at least not in the long
>term.  Such a kludge would do two things:
>
>1) Remove the incentive to get the broken gateways fixed.  Once
>established, such an "interim" convention would never go away.

If the problem were only about gateways, it would be more easily fixable.
But it is not, it's about domains. What is a gateway supposed to do to a
MIME message destined for a domain that does not support the inclusion
of MIME headers in the "header part" (something well-defined in RFC 822
but by no means universal) of messages?  Perhaps people with limited
experience of heterogenous mail domains should ponder this question before
leaping in with the suggestion that it's all about gateways.