Philip Prindeville wrote: > [snip] > Could they have just *deleted* the Received: lines they didn't want to > show? "No, of course not. That would be too easy. Let's mangle them > into something that doesn't conform to RFC-822 instead." > > As it is, they were leaking hostnames through the "Reference:" and > "Message-Id:" fields anyway... but we won't talk about that. >
and removing these breaks "conversations", and makes messages in the "Sent" folder different than messages that are really sent. > They couldn't even leave the "id" and "timestamp" fields in the > Received: lines because that would be revealing... ummm... > revealing... uhh... how many licks it takes to get to the center of > a tootsie pop... or some such nonsense. that would reveal that their clock is out of sync :)
