Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcvax!ukc!eagle!dcl-cs!stephen
From: stephen@dcl-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: overuse of Received: headers
Message-ID: <323@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 4-Apr-87 21:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: dcl-csva.323
Posted: Sat Apr  4 21:17:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Apr-87 04:06:37 EST
References: <1676@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: stephen@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Stephen J. Muir)
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.
Lines: 27

In article <1676@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>The time has come to address mail headers as well. In particular,
>the "Received:" header seems to me to be (a) longer than necessary
>(a site and date/time should be enough), and (b) not necessary
>at all when the mail is received from a local user (in which ...

The "Received:" header is useful for:

- checking the route mail travels and the time delays
- helping to check the authenticity of mail
- rebuilding a route for error messages when other means fail

This header should be added by a machine when it receives mail from another
machine (thus local mail should not have any "Received:" lines).  A mail user
interface should hide these lines normally, but should have a means of making
them visible when required.

The machine the header says it is received *from* should be calculated by the
receiving host by, say, a reverse lookup on the DoD Internet table given the
n.n.n.n address the mail connection originated from or, say, the UUCP system
name that was in use at the time of the transfer.  This is the basis of
authenticity checking.
-- 
EMAIL:	stephen@comp.lancs.ac.uk	| Post: University of Lancaster,
UUCP:	...!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!stephen	|	Department of Computing,
Phone:	+44 524 65201 Ext. 4120		|	Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK.
Project:Alvey ECLIPSE Distribution	|	LA1 4YR