From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Sun Oct 22 2000 - 00:28:18 CDT
I wrote:
> Do you see the error in making the "my mailer does this" argument
> regarding headers?
Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se):
> You press "v" or "h". When I use mailx, I use "P". Great. But in a
> mailer like Outlook Express, ...
I'll take that as a no, you don't understand why the "my mailer does this"
argument is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter what any specific mail agent does with the information
in a header, the fact that the information is useful is all that is
required.
If you still believe otherwise, let's hear your argument that Received
headers should be dropped from the mail spec. You see, if you use Outlook
you have to click on a few buttons to see them, so they shouldn't be in
the header. The Date should be in the body, because maybe some mailer
doesn't show that. The In-Reply-To, the References, or name any other
header, doesn't belong as a header because maybe some mail agent somewhere
doesn't currently display them in a pretty manner.
> As long as the From line cannot result in a third person not getting
> the mail.
Huh? It would help if you spoke in complete sentences. I've tried figuring
out what you think you are saying several times and it's hopeless. If a
From: header CANNOT result in the email NOT getting to the third person,
(i.e., it DOES result in the mail GETTING to the third person), then
you've forged an address, not used an invalid one.
> You wouldn't like me to post a lot of stupid shit as
> stanley@peak.org.invalid, would you?
Since that address is what the spec implies I should be using for MY
invalid address, you'd be forging messages if you used that. You cannot
append .invalid to YOUR address and get the string you want to use. No, I
wouldn't like it, but it still doesn't show that news has been broken
when you use it. Do you know of any servers that would crash when you do?
> Only if they share your view on what's convenient.
No, since they expected me to accept their view of convenience, they can
accept mine and support the mandatory header I want. They want it
convenient for them, they make it convenient for others. Fair exchange.
> but it is in my interest of my convenience that people clearly see
> that they are reading a copy of a newsgroups message.
And since a header that explicitely tells them this will be very clear,
you support the header, then. Yes? You do realize that a "blurb" in the
body will be seen by many people as the first thing to delete, which means
nobody will know. Where is your "clearly see" in this case?
These headers are information about the processing of the message, they
are not comments relevant to the content of the message. They should be in
the header, not the body. When they appear in the header, they are
available for automated processing, and for mail agents to display as
they, and the user, wishes. You could even write a procmail recipe that
inserts your bloody body blurb when a message with the right headers
arrives. Problem solved.