Re: [dkim-milter-discuss] Update: Re: problems with length of headers

[Sven-Thorsten F. <jo...@al...>]

On 18/01/2010 2:39 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> Sven-Thorsten Fahrbach wrote:
>    
>> I've checked the headers that get sent to sendmail over SMTP again, to
>> be sure. They really do look okay to me. Here's the hash (i.e.
>> associative array in non-perl parlance) with the header information as
>> key-value pairs:
>>
>> 'MIME-Version' =>  '1.0',
>> 'Return-Path'  =>  '<web...@co...>',
>> 'X-Mailer'     =>  'OpenEMM V6.0.1',
>> 'Date'         =>  'Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:46:55 GMT',
>> 'Content-Type' =>  'multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="-==AGNITASOUTER164240059B2900000B==" ',
>> 'Reply-To'     =>  'Company Inc.<web...@co...>',
>> 'Message-ID'   =>  '<201...@op...valid>',
>> 'From'         =>  'Company Inc.<web...@co...>'
>>
>> Here's what the finished header looks like that gets sent over SMTP:
>>
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Return-Path:<web...@co...>
>> X-Mailer: OpenEMM V6.0.1
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:46:55 GMT
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="-==AGNITASOUTER164240059B2900000B=="
>> Reply-To: Antwort Company Inc.<web...@co...>
>> Message-ID:<201...@op...valid>
>> From: Company Inc.<web...@co...>
>>
>> Maybe someone will notice something out of the ordinary.
>>
>>      
> It seems the Reply-To has been changed: In the finished header there's
> the 'Antwort' prefix before 'Company Inc.'.
>    
Sorry, that was my fault. I deleted that accidentally - I just wanted to 
present the data in two different ways since I thought that the 
presentation as hash might be confusing for some. I wrote the header 
myself from the key-value pairs.