Hopefully the last on headers
Wed Feb 1 12:41:00 PST 1995
TO: ATA Reflector NOT SENT TO: ATAPI Reflector
Fibre Channel Reflector SSA Reflector
HIPPI Reflector ESCON Reflector
SCSI Reflector FC-IP Reflector
SFF Reflector Others I forgot I am on....
FROM: Dal Allan (dal_allan at mcimail.com)
Neither Rick's email nor mine was an attempt to blame any service. We both
appreciate there being reflectors, but we cannot all control the receipt of
information as well as we would like.
I do not know which of you who responded did so over the reflector or
personally unless it was stated specifically in the body. Therefore, in an
effort to reach the parties involved, this is another broadcast item.
Those of you who get full information have no problem, but there is a
variety of reasons why some of us do have a problem.
- Yes, full information is available on some systems.
- Yes, it is a software matter if headers are not provided.
- No, it is not the fault of the reflectors.
- No, it is not always controllable by the receiver.
The problem is not isolated. Some receiving services strip off all header
material except the line which that service thinks is most important e.g.
MCI Mail and MIS departments. Software packages under MIS management are
used to control Internet access, and site managers can choose an option to
strip all but the originator. BTW, the definition of originator varies. My
thanks for an explanation from John Lohmeyer which is paraphrased below:
> - On my new mail reader (MS Mail), the From address listed is picked out
> of the internet header with preference to the 'Sender:' line
> - On my old cc:Mail mail reader the From address listed was picked out
> of the internet header with preference to the 'From:' line.
> - My unix-based ELM mail reader gave me all the header lines.
Although MS Mail has an option to provide header lines, it does not work for
all sites for all email e.g. when dialing in remotely, John tells me MS Mail
strips the headers even when you have the option set to get them.
Hale Landis provided the sequence which should be followed by a mailer to
provide information on originator:
> 1) the Reply-To: field,
> 2) if no Reply-To:, it should use the From: field,
> 3) and finally, if no From:, it should use the Sender: field.
> This is a common design error in older generation email software.
What does Hale's last comment say about MS Mail then?
Devon Worrell advised that the WD reflectors repeat source information. The
only reflector I see as a source does not tell me the sender, so those of us
with stripped headers get either reflector OR originator, but never both.
BOTTOM LINE: This is not a big enough deal to suck up any more reflector
time. Rick made a simple request and I endorsed it, and there are more than
Rick and I/me that have the problem.
- It is not so easy for Rick and others in a similar boat to convince their
MIS site management to change procedures to get the header information.
- I am not going to give up worldwide access to my email over MCI Mail (via
local numbers in the countries I visit) to get header information.
- Larry Lamers has pleaded for the use of signatures which provide complete
response information but few have complied (including me for one).
One solution would be a burden on reflector administrators, which is to
extract the originator and reflector information and include it at the start
of the reflected email. I assume that if this was easy to do, it would be
happening now, so this is not a request for administrators to do so.
The simplest solution requires an effort on all our parts, especially by
those who are all-knowing because they get the headers. I am asking that you
be courteous enough to remember your unfortunate brethren.
Please adopt the etiquette of in-body AUTHOR and REFLECTOR addresses.
More information about the T10