Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: 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!

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