Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA
From: MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: user-editable mail headers
Message-ID: <804@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-Aug-84 15:36:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou3c.804
Posted: Sun Aug 26 15:36:29 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Aug-84 01:21:29 EDT
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 18
To: wcwells%ucbopal.CC@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Cc: header-people@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "wcwells%ucbopal.CC@Berkeley (William C. Wells)" of Sat 25 Aug 84 10:53:22-PDT
Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence)

Let's get some other things straight.

What is the point of a power tool to create arbitrary headers if some
process (be it composition or transport) decides to "correct" them?
It means that you cannot experiment with new header syntaxes without
writing code to do so.

I am greatly prejudiced against having mail transport agents (or even
mail bridges -- which some call "mail gateways") know about RFC 822.
Time and time again I have seen perfectly valid headers munged into
unrecognizability by such overly-"helpful" bridges.

Personally, I consider mail bridges in general to be a crock.  If it
weren't for every trivial entity which strings up a network thinking
they have God's gift for designing the perfect network protocols, we
wouldn't have this plethoria of different network protocols that
require mail bridges.
-------