You are right, and I can add that the 'with' value is not rfc compliant ( it
must content a 'iana' defined protocol, here SMTP, nothing else, but many
smtp software add here the software name and version)
But consider this rfc 2821 text about 'gateways' :
-----------
3.8.2 Received Lines in Gatewaying
When forwarding a message into or out of the Internet environment, a
gateway MUST prepend a Received: line, but it MUST NOT alter in any
way a Received: line that is already in the header.
"Received:" fields of messages originating from other environments
may not conform exactly to this specification. However, the most
important use of Received: lines is for debugging mail faults, and
this debugging can be severely hampered by well-meaning gateways that
try to "fix" a Received: line. As another consequence of trace
fields arising in non-SMTP environments, receiving systems MUST NOT
reject mail based on the format of a trace field and SHOULD be
extremely robust in the light of unexpected information or formats in
those fields.
-----------
Definitly you can have no compliant 'received' headers, and the MSOT
IMPORTANT think is that "receiving systems MUST NOT reject based on the
format of a trace field" (ie in "Received:" header line).
Even if xmail is not a 'gateway' to/from no smtp systems, this paragraph
could allow to change the 'MUST' to 'SHOULD' in rfc 2821 sections 4.1.3 and
4.4.
Many others 'pure smtp' softwares add some specific information in the
'received:' headers as xmail do.
But in 'pure' smtp environment, you are right.
The 'port' value is sometimes helpfull, but could be deleted in the header
and added in the logs ;) (Davide ?)
Francis
-----Message d'origine-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A: xmail@xmailserver.org
Date: 22/04/08 11:15
Objet: [xmail] non-RFC compliant Received headers
XMail 1.24 writes Received headers, that are looking like this:
Received: from [9.145.228.148] ([192.168.56.85]:3022)
by example.com ([192.168.56.102]:25) with [XMail 1.24 ESMTP
Server]
id <825E7D24-FB9C-46E1-8D27-D3988F776D8F> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:34:42 +0100
I was puzzled about the port, that is being appended as it didn't
happen in older version of XMail and so I looked at the RFC. And it
appears, that the port is not allowed in an "Address-literal" used in
the "TCP-Info". Or did I understand something wrong.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
