Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path: <rosuav@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: python-list@python.org
Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status: OK 0.015
X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.97; '*S*': 0.00; 'appropriate.': 0.09; 'rfc': 0.09; 'subject:position': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'bug': 0.12; '2822': 0.16; '2822,': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'subject:Add': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'library': 0.18; 'wed,': 0.18; 'bit': 0.19; 'possible,': 0.19; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'headers': 0.24; 'issue,': 0.24; 'header': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'tracker': 0.26; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'specifically': 0.29; 'feature': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'covered': 0.32; 'another': 0.32; 'says': 0.33; 'standards': 0.33; '"the': 0.34; 'requirement': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'building': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'version': 0.36; 'smtp': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'issue': 0.38; 'that,': 0.38; 'does': 0.39; 'supporting': 0.39; 'even': 0.60; 'new': 0.61; 'such': 0.63; 'received:': 0.65; 'managing': 0.66; 'compliant': 0.68; 'viable': 0.84; 'to:none': 0.92
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=E9+FR3rImSId38EmijgzQj2rthEIi5OCu46MMx1lvrk=; b=CKhoC/Tc66vb8DKL0HjioB2cZVDNRdbDu8riaVXeXBFMTv9IjSl0BUhCXGF8Lj4S9N kBCEHTUhmTddYiNtYP+mkwubp0RyFw5k6mmBYmbIQl3XvPoQRDTYSWn73iFnma9TTilh uVWP12DWtK4tGrabGKnzEaAlre9Oss9GJpalifVSAh58uRE93EBWmmQ9X/eGYj3KIGDx 0ykJ7pE4LdOsKmwdhUqj0VDH3wx0Lej66ZMCA4S65xYksYg7A2hlHgWy1LSnmrWzVEI4 ja3s9uTiMyP3mXtsx6Vnrn1GqsnF5KcsLhJFLfeQnKL/IMlbJhX1zLCFhP5qDKtYng3o AVLA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.34.67 with SMTP id x3mr60507vei.37.1399421639000; Tue, 06 May 2014 17:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lkb8u5$aag$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <lk8q3j$3mg$2@reader1.panix.com> <mailman.9687.1399323113.18130.python-list@python.org> <lk8u1h$sid$1@reader1.panix.com> <lkb8u5$aag$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:13:58 +1000
Subject: Re: Add "Received:" header to email msg in correct position?
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Cc: "python-list@python.org" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post: <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help: <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.9720.1399421641.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace: 1399421641 news.xs4all.nl 2897 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:48403
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:70997

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
> If the prepend requirement is covered by
>
> "The email package is a library for managing email messages, including MIME
> and other RFC 2822-based message documents. It is specifically not designed
> to do any sending of email messages to SMTP (RFC 2821), NNTP, or other
> servers; those are functions of modules such as smtplib and nntplib. The
> email package attempts to be as RFC-compliant as possible, supporting in
> addition to RFC 2822, such MIME-related RFCs as RFC 2045, RFC 2046, RFC
> 2047, and RFC 2231."
>
> and the current 3.4/5 version does not prepend and there is no existing
> tracker issue, then a new issue would seem to be appropriate.

That's a bit tricky. RFC 2822 section 3.6.7 says the Received: headers
are "strictly informational, and any formal interpretation of them is
outside of the scope of this document", but it does reference RFC
2821. Should the addition of another Received header be part of
building an RFC 2822 compliant message, or should you build up a
message without that, and have one added at transport time?

I would say that, even if this isn't considered a bug (as in, failure
to comply with standards it claims to comply with), it would still be
a viable feature addition.

ChrisA