Outlook mangles headers in forwarded & redirected messages

[Gerard]

MS Outlook is not RFC compliant in the forwarding of messages. It mangles and
reorders the headers making them useless for organizations like SpamCop.

Microsoft would be doing users a favor if they make Outlook fully RFC
compliant. This problem also causes mail that is 'redirected' to be broken.

No version of MS Outlook ever released has even been close to RFC compliant.
That is really pathetic.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...5663ff597&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.general

 

[VanguardLH]

MS Outlook is not RFC compliant in the forwarding of messages. It mangles and
reorders the headers making them useless for organizations like SpamCop.

Microsoft would be doing users a favor if they make Outlook fully RFC
compliant. This problem also causes mail that is 'redirected' to be broken.

No version of MS Outlook ever released has even been close to RFC compliant.
That is really pathetic.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...5663ff597&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.general

Worthless suggestion. You mention Ellen's post over in the SpamCop
newsgroups but don't even bother to copy it here to provide explanation
of your reference. You claim Outlook is not RFC compliant but you can't
be bothered to mention which REQUIRED statements in *which* RFCs that
Outlook is violating (since SHOULD and RECOMMENDED statements are not
required compliance by any e-mail client).

You wanted to rant. You obviously weren't interested in providing any
details. Useless suggestion.

 

[Gerard]

Worthless suggestion. You mention Ellen's post over in the SpamCop
newsgroups but don't even bother to copy it here to provide explanation
of your reference. You claim Outlook is not RFC compliant but you can't
be bothered to mention which REQUIRED statements in *which* RFCs that
Outlook is violating (since SHOULD and RECOMMENDED statements are not
required compliance by any e-mail client).

You wanted to rant. You obviously weren't interested in providing any
details. Useless suggestion.

Have an associate or friend send you a email, with an attachment if you so
desire. Now forward that message using outlook to another associate. Again,
forward that same document, only this time using an RFC compliant MUA such
as Becky Internet Main, if you are using a Win32 environment, or perhaps
claws-mail if using a *nix system. If you will then examine the headers in
the two forwarded messages against the original message it will become
crystal clear how Outlook has mangled, striped and reordered the email
headers making it useless for organization like SpamCop and etc. It also
results in the inability to properly reply to redirected messages.

You could check here more further details.

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/122.html