Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: overuse of Received: headers
Message-ID: <686@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-May-87 04:35:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: van-bc.686
Posted: Fri May  1 04:35:57 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 3-May-87 05:43:17 EDT
References: <8UVxtLy00UkSdSw0Co@andrew.cmu.edu> <900@maynard.BSW.COM> <1761@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Public Access Network, Vancouver, BC.
Lines: 24

In article <1761@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>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).
>
Remember, the Received: headers are generated by the message transfer
agents, smail, sendmail, et al. As such even if the different MTA's that a
message gets passed to are all on the same machine each is separate and
distinct, and must generate Received: header of it's own (assuming for the
moment that we believe that they are needed at all from any MTA).

So even though you are correct in saying that we have a date field etc in
the message (hopefully, but not necessarily generated by the user agent) we
are able to see where and how it was actually given to an MTA for
processing. This is important information that can show how a message has
been actually transferred from the sending UA to the receiving UA. 

I find the Received: headers interesting and useful in seeing the actual
handling of the messages from MTA to MTA, via what network.

-- 
Stuart Lynne	ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl     Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532