Michael, I have to take exception to the statement that Outlook retains 100% fidelity on the RFC defined headers. In multiple tests I observed Outlook change the original To: header line when forwarding an email to an external source.
While the argument could be made that both addresses are correct from an "original destination mailbox" standpoint, the fact is that the SMTP To: address was changed in the forwarded headers. Hence 100% fidelity was not maintained on the RFC defined To: - Destination Address Field. (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3) .. Note that I didn't test whether a similar issue happens with Cc: and Bcc: fields too... Since the incoming mail flow path is different for our org depending on the actual To: address, this could lead to some really confusing situations in trying to troubleshoot a delivery problem if headers get mangled during the troubleshooting process... I agree with Jason in that Outlook should *not* touch the internet headers on forwarded messages. This is a poor decision on Microsoft's part. JP -----Original Message----- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Not all headers included when forwarding as attachment You don't have to pay to make bug reports. You ask for a non-dec and they give it to you. However, you do have to offer a CC up front. Outlook retains 100% fidelity on RFC headers and on pre-existing NAMED PROPERTIES. MAPI maintains 100% fidelity on transport headers at incoming bridgehead (hub) but since Internet named properties are no longer propagated by default as of Exchange 2007 sp2, Outlook 2010 doesn't try to either. That behavior may have been introduced as of Outlook 2007 sp2, you might want to check with an Outlook MVP. The easiest solution, I believe, would be to create an Internet named property for your mailbox databases for the headers in question. There is information on how to do that at msexchangeteam.com; there are a number of posts on that blog from last year about named property behavior changes. I think I blogged about it too; I can't remember. Ah yes, here we go: <http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2009/06/17/named-properties-what-lies-ahead.aspx> Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -----Original Message----- From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:00 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Not all headers included when forwarding as attachment Thanks Joe, nice to see I'm not the only one. I also posted in the Outlook general forum with not too much response: http://ow.ly/1Qd9D Some discussion occurring on the office development forum too: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vsto/thread/61a98015-24a4-47 2c-a100-37b1e99d4ce4?prof=required Apparently a TNEF attachment will retain all info, but that's no better without that guy's future TNEF->MIME (Base64?) proxy. Hopefully a hotfix is on the horizon! Wonder if it makes sense to do a PSS call, though I upchuck at the thought of paying to make a bug report. I'm still hoping against all odds that some decent admin-friendly mail-flow troubleshooting features start trickling in some day. e.g. Ctrl+u raw message view like in T-bird, true deterministic encoding and MIME related choices, and non-buggy plain text editor. *sigh* ~JasonG > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Pochedley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:52 > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Not all headers included when forwarding as attachment > > Jason, > > Just wanted to let you know that I was also able to observe a similar > issue where the headers displayed in Outlook or OWA do not match the > headers in a forwarded message (as an attachment)... In my testing, I > forwarded the full messages as attachments to my gmail account. > > While I didn't see as large a difference of stripped headers, there > certainly are differences and items that don't match between Outlook > and the forwarded version... > > For one example, look for the TO: line on each set of headers (example > below)... I know that the subscription for this newsletter goes to my > [email protected] account... However, the forwarded message has > replaced the correct original TO: info with my updated > [email protected] address! (Both addresses are associated > with the same mailbox, but the fivesgroup.com address is newer and > presently my "Primary" SMTP address within Exchange. There's no > reason Outlook should change this detail on forwarding though.) I was > able to observe this specific instance of header mangling on every > message sent directly to my old SMTP address. > > Here's example headers after I shuffled lines to make them match as close > as possible. I didn't delete anything, just re-arranged to make > differences more apparent at the bottom of each... The aforementioned > changed To: line is line 29 in each header. > > Original message headers as presented in Outlook 2010 / Exchange 2007 > OWA: > > Received: from mail121-tx2-R.bigfish.com (65.55.88.113) by ex- > cas.namfg.com > (10.1.1.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Wed, 26 May > 2010 > 11:28:29 -0400 > Received: from mail121-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mail121-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A58715982F9 for > <[email protected]>; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:28 +0000 (UTC) > X-SpamScore: -30 > X-BigFish: vps- > 30(zzcc3N77f5I541I1996J552W946fmzz272R1202hz4fhzz2fh5eh61h) > X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 > Received: from mail121-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mail121-tx2 > (MessageSwitch) id 1274887705562932_22654; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:25 > +0000 > (UTC) > Received: from TX2EHSMHS025.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.244]) by > mail121-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107F0870052 for > <[email protected]>; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:24 +0000 (UTC) > Received: from chalmers.techtarget.com (206.19.49.33) by > TX2EHSMHS025.bigfish.com (10.9.99.125) with Microsoft SMTP Server id > 14.0.482.44; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:22 +0000 > DomainKey-Signature: q=dns; a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; > s=ttgt_1024; d=lists.techtarget.com; > h=From; > b=SB+BVvXBdPOObWbuIOFYvtfO6waiNHLokCFou1b86N68c80g3BttgmfXTWyBr9N+ > 4ay/+wxiQQUor4SA+QZbfn10L3USFwLyfKk3aiWrFYgMiOkjxE4QIS7WuqqeNR39 > b2VnATT9vw6KbGJQbwWWsOK8LpdMhpi5rL2NQQgOGiU= > Received: from [10.200.1.4] ([10.200.1.4:6167]) by > chalmers.techtarget.com > (envelope-from <[email protected]>) > (ecelerity 2.2.2.35 r(26825/26848M)) with ECSTREAM id 74/4F- > 03936-51E3DFB4; > Wed, 26 May 2010 11:28:21 -0400 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > From: Windows Server Advisor > <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:18 +0000 > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Active Directory and PowerShell unite in R2 > Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: TargetMail E-Mail By TechTarget.com > X-content_id: 767500 > X-Reverse-DNS: mailhost9.lists.techtarget.com > Return-Path: [email protected] > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > Message headers from attachment forwarded to Gmail: > > Received: from mail121-tx2-R.bigfish.com (65.55.88.113) by ex- > cas.namfg.com > (10.1.1.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Wed, 26 May > 2010 > 11:28:29 -0400 > Received: from mail121-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mail121-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A58715982F9 for > <[email protected]>; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:28 +0000 (UTC) > X-spamscore: -30 > x-bigfish: vps- > 30(zzcc3N77f5I541I1996J552W946fmzz272R1202hz4fhzz2fh5eh61h) > x-spam-tcs-scl: 0:0 > Received: from mail121-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mail121-tx2 > (MessageSwitch) id 1274887705562932_22654; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:25 > +0000 > (UTC) > Received: from TX2EHSMHS025.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.244]) by > mail121-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107F0870052 for > <[email protected]>; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:24 +0000 (UTC) > Received: from chalmers.techtarget.com (206.19.49.33) by > TX2EHSMHS025.bigfish.com (10.9.99.125) with Microsoft SMTP Server id > 14.0.482.44; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:28:22 +0000 > domainkey-signature: q=dns; a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; s=ttgt_1024; > d=lists.techtarget.com; > h=From; > b=SB+BVvXBdPOObWbuIOFYvtfO6waiNHLokCFou1b86N68c80g3BttgmfXTWyBr9N+ > 4ay/+wxiQQUor4SA+QZbfn10L3USFwLyfKk3aiWrFYgMiOkjxE4QIS7WuqqeNR39 > b2VnATT9vw6KbGJQbwWWsOK8LpdMhpi5rL2NQQgOGiU= > Received: from [10.200.1.4] ([10.200.1.4:6167]) by > chalmers.techtarget.com > (envelope-from <[email protected]>) > (ecelerity 2.2.2.35 r(26825/26848M)) with ECSTREAM id 74/4F- > 03936-51E3DFB4; > Wed, 26 May 2010 11:28:21 -0400 > To: Joe Pochedley <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > From: Windows Server Advisor > <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:28:18 -0400 > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Active Directory and PowerShell unite in R2 > Thread-Topic: Active Directory and PowerShell unite in R2 > Thread-Index: Acr86BhszBb/YfPhQau+vliSqVDFKw== > X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: ex-cas.namfg.com > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > x-content_id: 767500 > x-reverse-dns: mailhost9.lists.techtarget.com > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="_000_744F0393651E3DFB4chalmerstechtargetcom_" > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > > It's one thing for Outlook to make the headers look nicer for display, > but Outlook should not be mangling the headers in any way when you > forward them. > > JP > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:00 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Not all headers included when forwarding as attachment > > OL 2010 against Ex2003: This appears to be something new with OL 2010 > compared with OL2k7 (but maybe I've managed to munge something). > > Issue is, when I forward a message received from the Internet as an > attachment, the attached message loses many of its original headers. > Am I missing a setting somewhere? Behavior is the same with > <ctrl>+<alt>+<f> or dragging the message to attach. > > Headers AFTER forwarding: > Received: from mxgateway.npumail.com ([192.168.2.10]) by > exchgsrv.nputilities.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 > May 2010 18:19:03 -0400 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > Received: from tus1smtoutpex02.symantec.com ([216.10.195.242]) by > mxgateway.npumail.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2010 18:18:57 -0400 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 > Received: from tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com > (tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com [192.168.214.44]) by (Symantec > Brightmail Gateway out) with SMTP id C9.4B.27235.F5D03FB4; Tue, 18 May > 2010 14:57:52 -0700 (MST) > Received: from reserved-155-64-230-18.ges.symantec.com > ([155.64.230.18] > helo=TUS1XCHECNPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com) by > tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from > <[email protected]>) id 1OEUmY-0000F2-7K; Tue, 18 May 2010 > 14:56:58 -0700 > Received: from TUS1XCHEVSPIN04.enterprise.veritas.com > ([155.64.230.53]) by TUS1XCHECNPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com with > Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 May 2010 14:56:57 -0700 > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > Subject: Learn How Symantec spams its customers Webcast. > Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:58:10 -0400 > Message-ID: > <1bf6ba633bdc0e48b81213232b41e615a99...@tus1xchclupin09.enterprise.verita > s > .com> > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > Thread-Topic: Learn How Symantec spams its customers Webcast. > Thread-Index: Acr2qeWaE/cQLtszSauixh7WqOhtNwACya8w > From: "Chris Austin" <[email protected]> > To: "Chris Austin" <[email protected]> > > > ACTUAL Headers: > > Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0 > Received: from mxgateway.npumail.com ([192.168.2.10]) by > exchgsrv.nputilities.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); > Tue, 18 May 2010 18:19:03 -0400 > Subject: Learn How Symantec spams its customers Webcast. > Authentication-Results: mxgateway.npumail.com; dkim=neutral (message > not > signed) header.i=none > Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=216.10.195.242; > receiver=npumail.com; > envelope-from="[email protected]"; > x-sender="[email protected]"; > x-conformance=sidf_compatible > Received-SPF: Pass identity=mailfrom; client-ip=216.10.195.242; > receiver=npumail.com; > envelope-from="[email protected]"; > x-sender="[email protected]"; > x-conformance=sidf_compatible; > x-record-type="v=spf1" > Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=216.10.195.242; > receiver=npumail.com; > envelope-from="[email protected]"; > x-sender="[email protected]"; > x-conformance=sidf_compatible > X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true > X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: > AvQCAHmv8kvYCsPymWdsb2JhbACBPoFVBJoBbxUBAQEBAQgLCgcRIqsgg1ONHYJ1gTFqBI > NA > X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,258,1272859200"; > d="scan'208,217";a="1861722" > Received: from tus1smtoutpex02.symantec.com ([216.10.195.242]) > by mxgateway.npumail.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2010 18:18:57 -0400 > X-AuditID: d80ac3f2-b7cd2ae000006a63-3a-4bf30d5f67ff > Received: from tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com > (tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com [192.168.214.44]) > by (Symantec Brightmail Gateway out) with SMTP id > C9.4B.27235.F5D03FB4; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:57:52 -0700 (MST) > Received: from reserved-155-64-230-18.ges.symantec.com > ([155.64.230.18] > helo=TUS1XCHECNPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com) > by tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from <[email protected]>) > id 1OEUmY-0000F2-7K; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:56:58 -0700 > Received: from TUS1XCHEVSPIN04.enterprise.veritas.com > ([155.64.230.53]) by TUS1XCHECNPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com with > Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); > Tue, 18 May 2010 14:56:57 -0700 > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CAF6D5.03EE53D6" > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 > Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:58:10 -0700 > Message-ID: > <1bf6ba633bdc0e48b81213232b41e615a99...@tus1xchclupin09.enterprise.verita > s > .com> > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > Thread-Topic: Learn How Symantec spams its customers Webcast. > Thread-Index: Acr2qeWaE/cQLtszSauixh7WqOhtNwACya8w > From: "Chris Austin" <[email protected]> > To: "Chris Austin" <[email protected]> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2010 21:56:57.0277 (UTC) > FILETIME=[08FD5ED0:01CAF6D5] > X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== > Return-Path: [email protected] > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01CAF6D5.03EE53D6 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01CAF6D5.03EE53D6 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01CAF6D5.03EE53D6-- > > Any suggestions appreciated! > > ~JasonG > > > > >
