On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote: > > > Once again. The fact that that header is predictively inserted into > > the disk file is immaterial. It is even arguably wrong. (Although > > that argument is likely to fail in the face of the performance > > advantage of not having to rewrite the file just to add that one > > header when a final delivery is actually made.) > > Yeah, if we were to correct the fact that we forward messages with the > Return-path, we'd correct it by skipping the first line of the file when > we were writing it back to the MTA, not by writing the initial file > without the Return-path header.
I'm fairly certain that rfc2821 allows the initial mta to remove the return-path header if it exists, so it is not incorrect to send the entire message file when re-injecting the message. -Chris
