Trane Francks: >On 7/8/14 12:53 PM +0900, Hartmut Figge wrote: >> Trane Francks:
>>>My outbound mail all utilizes the X-Mailer header. It's worth noting >>>that neither 'User-Agent" or "X-Mailer" are specified in RFC 5322. As >>>such, it's perhaps less than kind to consider SM to be deteriorated when >>>the inclusion of either header is purely optional and in no way >>>addresses any particular RFC. At least, as far as I can recall. >> >> Then why show the User-Agent in the header pane at all? ;) > >Because it's informational, obviously. And that is also true for other notations of a user agent, like X-Mailer. >> Formerly at least X-Mailer was handled, maybe more notations also. I >> didn't notice until today what had happened, because of Mnenhy. > >X-Mailer is still there, so I don't know what you mean by formerly >handled. It is in the header, but it is not shown in the header pane of SM. In the Suite it was shown as User-Agent. >It's up to the receiver what to do about such a header Sure. And the Suite was better in it than SM. >and, basically, the user agent is meaningless as long as the >structure of the received mail adheres to RFCs. The UA gives valuable information for answering questions about problems. Another example of deterioration? The missing build date in the UA. For Trunk it is essential. The missing language in the UA would be nice to have back. Hartmut _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
