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