Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id KAA25244; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:38:53 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:38:34 -0500
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id KAA25209; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:38:31 -0500
Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 666); 20 Mar 1996 15:40:35 GMT
Date: 20 Mar 1996 15:40:35 GMT
Message-ID: <19960320154035.28885.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: msg-id

> This problem has arisen because RFC1123 5.2.8 says that the IP address
> SHOULD be included in the FROM field but it failed to specify how,
> leaving a comment as the only option that would continue to conform with
> the syntax.

Since Received lines are for human consumption, and comments are for
human consumption, I'm not sure why this is a problem.

I've never seen an MTA toss comments; nor do I see any justification
in RFC 822 for an MTA to do so. Even if that occasionally happens, it
is far less frequent than mailers that simply don't add the necessary
information---like, say, cs.utk.edu.

---Dan