Don't like what rewrite_mail is doing.

[Robert Nicholson <ro...@elastica.com>]

Can anybody tell me why the X-Spam headers are put at the top?

Any chance I can set it so that it always puts the X-Spam headers  
after From:?

Re: Don't like what rewrite_mail is doing.

[Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 06:28:01PM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> FWIW, there were a lot of domains that weren't including a header list 
> at the time of the change.  In fact, there still are a lot of domains 
> that aren't including a header list like, for example, yahoo-inc.com.

There are some other benefits that came up while discussing it, such as
"headers are placed around the Received header that added it for easier
debugging", etc.  I forget the ticket # but either there or the dev@ list is
where the discussion took place. :)

-- 
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"lp1 on fire" - Linux kernel error message

Re: Don't like what rewrite_mail is doing.

["Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>]

Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> On Monday 17 July 2006 05:30, Matt Kettler took the opportunity to write:
>> Robert Nicholson wrote:
>>> Can anybody tell me why the X-Spam headers are put at the top?
>> Yes, because doing otherwise will break DomainKeys signatures.
> 
> As a matter of fact it won't do that unless
> a) the signature field doesn't list the header fields included in the 
> signature (and with DKIM that is mandatory), or

FWIW, there were a lot of domains that weren't including a header list 
at the time of the change.  In fact, there still are a lot of domains 
that aren't including a header list like, for example, yahoo-inc.com.

Of course, we also know that DKIM isn't just DK with a mandatory h=...


Daryl

Re: Don't like what rewrite_mail is doing.

[Magnus Holmgren <ho...@lysator.liu.se>]

On Monday 17 July 2006 05:30, Matt Kettler took the opportunity to write:
> Robert Nicholson wrote:
> > Can anybody tell me why the X-Spam headers are put at the top?
>
> Yes, because doing otherwise will break DomainKeys signatures.

As a matter of fact it won't do that unless
a) the signature field doesn't list the header fields included in the 
signature (and with DKIM that is mandatory), or
b) there were already X-Spam-* fields present and removed by SpamAssassin, but 
adding SA headers to outgoing mail is kinda meaningless, unless ...

Actually, it might be useful to trust SA headers that are DK[IM]-signed by 
certain signers, but maybe you would skip passing such mail through your own 
SA installation then.

> In general Received headers get added at the top, so that working down
> the headers you can determine chronology. I'm not sure if this is a RFC
> requirement or not, and I'm not sure if it would be required for this
> header. However, given the general behaviors of adding Received:
> headers, blending in with the trend of how headers are added is the
> most-sensible thing to do.

Yes, when you get used to it it's much better when you can see which MTA added 
which headers.

-- 
Magnus Holmgren        holmgren@lysator.liu.se
                       (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)

Re: Don't like what rewrite_mail is doing.

[Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net>]

Robert Nicholson wrote:
> Can anybody tell me why the X-Spam headers are put at the top?
Yes, because doing otherwise will break DomainKeys signatures.
>
> Any chance I can set it so that it always puts the X-Spam headers
> after From:?
You can hack the code to do it, but I'd suggest not doing so because of
the above problem.


In general Received headers get added at the top, so that working down
the headers you can determine chronology. I'm not sure if this is a RFC
requirement or not, and I'm not sure if it would be required for this
header. However, given the general behaviors of adding Received:
headers, blending in with the trend of how headers are added is the
most-sensible thing to do.



>
>
>
>