On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
> yes, but why the change? I could not find any trace of a discussion
> in the list, and the only one pertinent to the subject seems to point
> otherwise:
>
> At 9:35 am +0000 2003/11/11, Philip Hazel wrote:
> >
> >On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Phil Pennock wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a particular reason why Exim always fixes up the Resent-
> >> headers, including adding new headers?
> >
> >RFC822 and RFC2822 specify that certain header lines must be present.
> >Exim makes sure this is the case. IIRC, it is still working to 822,
> >which insists on more lines than 2822.
> >
> >2822 requires Date: and From: whereas 822 also requires either To: or
> >Cc: or Bcc: (again, IIRC).
>
> Can you remember why point 56 of 4.30 ChangeLog happened?
I am getting too old. This all happened less than a month ago, and I
can't remember the detail. Neither do I appear to have any relevant
saved messages, except as part of the discussion about resent- headers.
However, I think it all arose from that discussion. There was a view
that these kinds of header fixup should not happen by default except for
messages that originate on the local host, i.e. do not arrive via
TCP/IP.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
