Re: The need for two headers

On 8-feb-04, at 3:24, Brett Watson wrote:

> Another desirable difference in mail-ng would be for all the delivery 
> metadata to be transported to the MUA. At the moment, only that 
> portion of the delivery metadata which finds its way into the 822 
> headers is transported to the MUA. Much of the routing information has 
> been lost by this point in time, especially if the message has been 
> forwarded from one address to another in transit. I see no reason why 
> the complete delivery path information should not be available to the 
> MUA. (It's not always clear *why* a particular item has been delivered 
> to you, and having its full routing history can help.)

I find having all this "received by" "virus-scanned by" "43 ant-spam 
tests done" and so on stuff that can be found in many messages today 
rather annoying. For mailing list messages the headders are often 
bigger than the message itself. We really need to make people use a bit 
more restraint here.

Maybe a mechanism that lets the sender and/or the receiver indicate how 
much "life history" they want to be recorded would be in order? Then 
this kind of stuff can be left out or if it's already there, removed if 
this is desired.

I fully agree with the idea that we need to separate three types of 
information: the actual message, end-to-end metadata and hop-by-hop 
metadata.