Wed, 11 Jan 1995 20:13:50 +0100
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:50:23 CST Bill Harvey <[log in to unmask]>
said:
>Just today, I received a complaint from someone who's mail was
>rejected because the Max Hop (Received:) Count was exceeded. This
>was from SAS-L (a peered list) and had passed through quite a number
>of other LISTSERVs and mailers. And, admittedly, the max set by his
>system was ridiculously low (17!!!!), but, still, if this becomes the
>default, is it a concern? You do get an AWFUL lot of Received:
>headers with Default-Options=FULL...
Well, you can't make everyone happy. People who are behind such mailers
can always set their headers back to SHORT. It is not in my power to
force people with a hop count of 17 or a message limit of 20k to realize
that we're in 1995, or to make MIME bigots understand that some people do
not have MIME programs and that corporate users do not generally think
that "Well, this will force you to get MIME then" is an acceptable
attitude.
>Also, this was the first time I'd ever seen a header like:
>
>>Received: from VTVM1.BITNET by VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8a)
>>with NJ
>> id 2841 for [log in to unmask]; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 06:00:45
>> -0500
>
>I've been wishing LISTSERV would put a trail like this into DIST mail
>for a long time. Does it only do that with FULL headers?
LISTSERV always add this received tag, it just removes all received tags
before delivering short headers, so you probably never saw it :-)
DISTRIBUTE jobs have their own internal trail for troubleshooting
purposes, but it's not echoed to the mail header. Hmm, were you concerned
about excessive amounts of received tags? ;-)
Eric
|
|
|