In google email on Thunderbird, on Windows, when I forward a message, it has
many long line headers most of which I have to delete as shown below.

Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous headers?

Delivered-To
Received
X-Google-Smtp-Source
X-Received
ARC-Seal
ARC-Message-Signature
ARC-Authentication-Results
Return-Path
Received
Received-SPF
Authentication-Results
Received
DKIM-Signature
X-Virus-Scanned
Received
Received
To
Subject
X-PHP-Originating-Script
From
X-Mailer
MIME-Version
Content-Type
Reply-to
Message-Id
Date

On 12/10/21 9:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In google email on Thunderbird, on Windows, when I forward a message, it
> has
> many long line headers most of which I have to delete as shown below.
>
> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous headers?
>
> Delivered-To
> Received
> X-Google-Smtp-Source
> X-Received
> ARC-Seal
> ARC-Message-Signature
> ARC-Authentication-Results
> Return-Path
> Received
> Received-SPF
> Authentication-Results
> Received
> DKIM-Signature
> X-Virus-Scanned
> Received
> Received
> To
> Subject
> X-PHP-Originating-Script
> From
> X-Mailer
> MIME-Version
> Content-Type
> Reply-to
> Message-Id
> Date

Have you tried setting View > Headers > Normal from the Menu bar or button?

Works for me.

--
OS: Fedora 35 Workstation - Gnome 41 Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/
Same Nightmare
Different Day

Your Name wrote:

> In google email on Thunderbird, on Windows, when I forward a message, it has
> many long line headers most of which I have to delete as shown below.
>
> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous headers?

Of course.

№1. Go to "Preferences » Composition" and change the setting "Forward Messages" to "Inline"

№2. When forwarding the message, do *not* use "Message » Forward As » Attachment"

> Delivered-To
> Received
> X-Google-Smtp-Source
> X-Received
> ARC-Seal
> ARC-Message-Signature
> ARC-Authentication-Results
> Return-Path
> Received
> Received-SPF
> Authentication-Results
> Received
> DKIM-Signature
> X-Virus-Scanned
> Received
> Received
> To
> Subject
> X-PHP-Originating-Script
> From
> X-Mailer
> MIME-Version
> Content-Type
> Reply-to
> Message-Id
> Date

On 11/12/2021 04:45, Ваше Имя wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> In google email on Thunderbird, on Windows, when I forward a message, it has
>> many long line headers most of which I have to delete as shown below.
>>
>> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous headers?
>
>
> Of course.
>
> №1. Go to "Preferences » Composition" and change the setting "Forward Messages" to "Inline"
>
> №2. When forwarding the message, do *not* use "Message » Forward As » Attachment"
>

'Ваше Имя' translates as 'Your Name'. Ha ha! Vary funny.

Not: WalS48's solution (above) is simpler, and works.

On 11/12/2021 03.06, Your Name wrote:
> In google email on Thunderbird, on Windows, when I forward a message, it
> has
> many long line headers most of which I have to delete as shown below.
>
> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous headers?
>
> Delivered-To
> Received
> X-Google-Smtp-Source
> X-Received
> ARC-Seal
> ARC-Message-Signature
> ARC-Authentication-Results
> Return-Path
> Received
> Received-SPF
> Authentication-Results
> Received
> DKIM-Signature
> X-Virus-Scanned
> Received
> Received
> To
> Subject
> X-PHP-Originating-Script
> From
> X-Mailer
> MIME-Version
> Content-Type
> Reply-to
> Message-Id
> Date

Well, looking at the above, the Message-Id header is mandatory, so those
headers are not "ridiculous". Not going to analyze all of them now, but
one of them not being "ridiculous" nullifies your assertion.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Your Name wrote:

> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous headers?

Many of the headers will be added by google, not thunderbird.

Think yourself lucky you're not sending the email via outlook.com your message
would be lost in the noise compared to the headers ... but given those headers
aren't all displayed by default, why would you care?

On 2021-12-11 14:50, Andy Burns wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous
>> headers?
>
> Many of the headers will be added by google, not thunderbird.
>
> Think yourself lucky you're not sending the email via outlook.com your
> message would be lost in the noise compared to the headers ... but given
> those headers aren't all displayed by default, why would you care?

..... and if there is a legal problem related to the email, the headers
may be crucial.

--
Wolf K <https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com>
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times – though any decent
statistician might net those two factors together and conclude that
things were fairly average all round. (David Meech)

On 12/11/21 11:44 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 11/12/2021 03.06, Your Name wrote:
>> In google email on Thunderbird, on Windows, when I forward a message, it
>> has
>> many long line headers most of which I have to delete as shown below.
>>
>> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous
>> headers?
>>
>> Delivered-To
>> Received
>> X-Google-Smtp-Source
>> X-Received
>> ARC-Seal
>> ARC-Message-Signature
>> ARC-Authentication-Results
>> Return-Path
>> Received
>> Received-SPF
>> Authentication-Results
>> Received
>> DKIM-Signature
>> X-Virus-Scanned
>> Received
>> Received
>> To
>> Subject
>> X-PHP-Originating-Script
>> From
>> X-Mailer
>> MIME-Version
>> Content-Type
>> Reply-to
>> Message-Id
>> Date
>
>
> Well, looking at the above, the Message-Id header is mandatory, so those
> headers are not "ridiculous". Not going to analyze all of them now, but
> one of them not being "ridiculous" nullifies your assertion.

Aren't many of those headers added by the sending server? That's my
impression, anyway.

Over the years, I've looked for a non-technical explanation of all the
possible headers with no success.

*****************

OT venting...

I really, really hate this program anymore.

--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Windows 10 20H2
Firefox 91.0.2
Thunderbird 78.13.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 12/12/2021 00.19, Snowshed. wrote:
> On 12/11/21 11:44 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 11/12/2021 03.06, Your Name wrote:
>>> In google email on Thunderbird, on Windows, when I forward a message, it
>>> has
>>> many long line headers most of which I have to delete as shown below.
>>>
>>> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous
>>> headers?
>>>
>>> Delivered-To
>>> Received
>>> X-Google-Smtp-Source
>>> X-Received
>>> ARC-Seal
>>> ARC-Message-Signature
>>> ARC-Authentication-Results
>>> Return-Path
>>> Received
>>> Received-SPF
>>> Authentication-Results
>>> Received
>>> DKIM-Signature
>>> X-Virus-Scanned
>>> Received
>>> Received
>>> To
>>> Subject
>>> X-PHP-Originating-Script
>>> From
>>> X-Mailer
>>> MIME-Version
>>> Content-Type
>>> Reply-to
>>> Message-Id
>>> Date
>>
>>
>> Well, looking at the above, the Message-Id header is mandatory, so those
>> headers are not "ridiculous". Not going to analyze all of them now, but
>> one of them not being "ridiculous" nullifies your assertion.
>
> Aren't many of those headers added by the sending server? That's my
> impression, anyway.

Sure, but I did not bother to try to check which ;-)

>
> Over the years, I've looked for a non-technical explanation of all the
> possible headers with no success.

They are on RFCs.

>
> *****************
>
> OT venting...
>
> I really, really hate this program anymore.

I don't.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2021-12-11 22:43:36 +0000, Wolf K said:

>> Think yourself lucky you're not sending the email via outlook.com your
>> message would be lost in the noise compared to the headers ... but given
>> those headers aren't all displayed by default, why would you care?
>
> .... and if there is a legal problem related to the email, the headers
> may be crucial.

The headers are mostly ridiculous garbage related to Google server setup.

If Outlook is worse, I feel sorry for Outlook users because the Google
header garbage is almost always ten times as long or more than the body is.

Those ridiculously voluminous headers only show up when forwarding.
They do not show up in Thunderbird when reading the original message.

The two suggested Thunderbird settings that were implicated were
Tools > Preferences > Composition > Forward messages inline
View > Headers > All

Leaving the first alone and changing the second solved the problem!
View > Headers > Normal

That alone reduces the ridiculous list of unnecessary headers from these.

Delivered-To:
Received:
X-Google-Smtp-Source: (this one is a few paragraphs long)
Return-Path: (this is a few lines long)
Received: (this is also very many lines long)
Received-SPF: (this is only about five lines long)
Received: (this is only three or four lines long)
DKIM-Signature: (this is five or six lines long)
X-Virus-Scanned:
Received: (this is only three lines long)
Received: (this is only two lines long)
To:
Subject:
X-PHP-Originating-Script:
From:
X-Mailer:
MIME-Version:
Content-Type:
Reply-to:
Message-Id:
Date:

To these.

Subject:
Date:
From:
Reply-To:
To:

Carlos,

> but one of them not being "ridiculous" nullifies your assertion.

And which assertion would that be ? Care to quote it ?

Youknow ofcourse that if that assertion is not actually done by the OP (and
he hasn't) than your whole complaint has no leg to stand on, and as such
gets "nullified.

Also, playing your old game again ? You know, complaining something
being wrong but not giving an iota of information to how it it can be
corrected ? As such - without information to correct percieved wrongs -
your posts are useless to anyone. Particulary including to the OP.

Also, that message-id header is a bit special. It is, and isn't
mandatory. You're not expecting me to explain that, do you ? "when in
Rome", and all that ....

And funny : just like last time (in alt.os.linux) all you do is bitch about
some (currently made up) wrong, when others had/have no problem
understanding the question and provided the OP a solution to it.

As for your second post ? You show yourself again having trouble with just
reading the question. What was your suggestion ? "they are on RFCs".
What was the question again ? "a non-technical explanation". Yeah,
right. RFCs should be considered "non-technical". Riiighht....

Besides, mentioning "they are on RFCs" without including what, according to
you, they should be looking for is as usefull as silently pointing someone
to the nearest library.

Kid, first off, learn to read and absorb the question. Second, when you do
not understand the question or not have anything that would help the asker
getting closer to a solution its better to keep your mouth shut. Flapping
your trap like you currently do helps noone and instead just makes you look
like an ass.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Op 11-12-2021 om 03:06 schreef Your Name:
> In google email on Thunderbird, on Windows, when I forward a message, it
> has
> many long line headers most of which I have to delete as shown below.
>
> Is there a setting in Thunderbird to NOT include those ridiculous headers?
>
> Delivered-To
> Received
> X-Google-Smtp-Source
> X-Received
> ARC-Seal
> ARC-Message-Signature
> ARC-Authentication-Results
> Return-Path
> Received
> Received-SPF
> Authentication-Results
> Received
> DKIM-Signature
> X-Virus-Scanned
> Received
> Received
> To
> Subject
> X-PHP-Originating-Script
> From
> X-Mailer
> MIME-Version
> Content-Type
> Reply-to
> Message-Id
> Date

That's at least in part how security works, these days a lot of it is
needed to weed out bad actors.
Some of it has been made obligatory by large providers, esp. google mail.

But why complain about something you only see when looking at the source
of a message? (Ctlr+u)

Your Name wrote:

> View > Headers > Normal
> That alone reduces the ridiculous list of unnecessary headers from these.

But it doesn't "remove" them as you were asking, it simply doesn't display them,
and "normal" is the default setting, why did you set it to "all" if you don't
want to see them?

p.s. you may be interested in this add-on
<https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/compact-headers/>

On 12/12/2021 09.27, R.Wieser wrote:
> Carlos,
>
>> but one of them not being "ridiculous" nullifies your assertion.
>
> And which assertion would that be ? Care to quote it ?
>
> Youknow ofcourse that if that assertion is not actually done by the OP (and
> he hasn't) than your whole complaint has no leg to stand on, and as such
> gets "nullified.
>
>
> Also, playing your old game again ? You know, complaining something
> being wrong but not giving an iota of information to how it it can be
> corrected ? As such - without information to correct percieved wrongs -
> your posts are useless to anyone. Particulary including to the OP.
>
> Also, that message-id header is a bit special. It is, and isn't
> mandatory. You're not expecting me to explain that, do you ? "when in
> Rome", and all that ....
>
> And funny : just like last time (in alt.os.linux) all you do is bitch about
> some (currently made up) wrong, when others had/have no problem
> understanding the question and provided the OP a solution to it.
>
>
> As for your second post ? You show yourself again having trouble with just
> reading the question. What was your suggestion ? "they are on RFCs".
> What was the question again ? "a non-technical explanation". Yeah,
> right. RFCs should be considered "non-technical". Riiighht....
>
> Besides, mentioning "they are on RFCs" without including what, according to
> you, they should be looking for is as usefull as silently pointing someone
> to the nearest library.
>
>
> Kid, first off, learn to read and absorb the question. Second, when you do
> not understand the question or not have anything that would help the asker
> getting closer to a solution its better to keep your mouth shut. Flapping
> your trap like you currently do helps noone and instead just makes you look
> like an ass.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
Ignoring.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 12/12/2021 04.39, Your Name wrote:
> On 2021-12-11 22:43:36 +0000, Wolf K said:
>
>>> Think yourself lucky you're not sending the email via outlook.com your
>>> message would be lost in the noise compared to the headers ... but given
>>> those headers aren't all displayed by default, why would you care?
>>
>> .... and if there is a legal problem related to the email, the headers
>> may be crucial.
>
> The headers are mostly ridiculous garbage related to Google server setup.
>
> If Outlook is worse, I feel sorry for Outlook users because the Google
> header garbage is almost always ten times as long or more than the body is.
>
> Those ridiculously voluminous headers only show up when forwarding.
> They do not show up in Thunderbird when reading the original message.
>
> The two suggested Thunderbird settings that were implicated were
> Tools > Preferences > Composition > Forward messages inline
> View > Headers > All
>
> Leaving the first alone and changing the second solved the problem!
> View > Headers > Normal

Well, of course :-D

Nobody uses "View > Headers > All" :-)

>
> That alone reduces the ridiculous list of unnecessary headers from these.
>
> Delivered-To:
> Received:
> X-Google-Smtp-Source: (this one is a few paragraphs long)
> Return-Path: (this is a few lines long)
> Received: (this is also very many lines long)
> Received-SPF: (this is only about five lines long)
> Received: (this is only three or four lines long)
> DKIM-Signature: (this is five or six lines long)
> X-Virus-Scanned:
> Received: (this is only three lines long)
> Received: (this is only two lines long)
> To:
> Subject:
> X-PHP-Originating-Script:
> From:
> X-Mailer:
> MIME-Version:
> Content-Type:
> Reply-to:
> Message-Id:
> Date:
>
> To these.
>
> Subject:
> Date:
> From:
> Reply-To:
> To:
>

Ah, but this is information you did not say or was not clear before. You
are forwarding "inline". In this manner you get a subset of the headers,
but no longer as headers, but as message text. You can also edit them.
Even the mail body is not intact.

It is different than forwarding as attachment, in which method the
entire mail is included intact.

But in both cases thunderbird should not add any new "header" to the
forwarded section, all should be in the original email you got. And none
are proper headers of the new email you are sending.

I thought you were referring to the proper headers of the email, not to
those in the text.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos,

> Ignoring.

Thanks for telling me that you refuse/can't answer a simple question in
regard to what the OPs aledged assertion would be. It makes you /at best/ a
malicious troll.

Although I had a bit of hope that you would recognise what I said and stop
and think about what you're doing, my posts second audience is the other
people here - making them aware of your shennigans.

And by the way, I don't think you actually know very much. You just use a
big word (like "RFC") and hope the other will than come up with the next
step and tell you - after which you than can just claim that that was indeed
what you ment.

Nice trick though. Probably fools a newbie into thinking that you know a
lot. Upto the point where they notice that you're never the source of the
actual solution ...

.... and by me pointing that out I might even expedite that process. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote

|
| The headers are mostly ridiculous garbage related to Google server setup.
|

Actually most of it is "traditional". The sender inserts all of the basic
stuff, which should include from, to, content type markers, and *may*
include elements such as the name of the email program, which is
basically an ad. Then the path the email takes gets added as it goes along.

Newer items include encrypted signature for authentication as well
as a spam report, if you use a server-side spam filter. Then there are
various actors trying to put their brand on it. For example, I think TBird
adds pointless Mozilla header lines. So it has gotten more bloated
over time. Techie people are good at manufacturing officiality and
expressing it as bloat. But much of the header is relevant.

If it were me I'd prefer you not forward, anyway. Just copy and
paste what you thought was relevant. I get lots of forwarded
emails where someone thought the forwarded an article, but it didn't
come through. Or they forwarded HTML and I don't allow HTML
email to display. If the message is worth sending then it's worth
taking the time to actually write/format it yourself. Don't forward
HTML. And make sure what you're forwarding is not just a link to
something you're reading.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 04.39, Your Name wrote:
> > On 2021-12-11 22:43:36 +0000, Wolf K said:
> >
> >>> Think yourself lucky you're not sending the email via outlook.com your
> >>> message would be lost in the noise compared to the headers ... but given
> >>> those headers aren't all displayed by default, why would you care?
> >>
> >> .... and if there is a legal problem related to the email, the headers
> >> may be crucial.
> >
> > The headers are mostly ridiculous garbage related to Google server setup.
> >
> > If Outlook is worse, I feel sorry for Outlook users because the Google
> > header garbage is almost always ten times as long or more than the body is.
> >
> > Those ridiculously voluminous headers only show up when forwarding.
> > They do not show up in Thunderbird when reading the original message.
> >
> > The two suggested Thunderbird settings that were implicated were
> > Tools > Preferences > Composition > Forward messages inline
> > View > Headers > All
> >
> > Leaving the first alone and changing the second solved the problem!
> > View > Headers > Normal
>
> Well, of course :-D
>
> Nobody uses "View > Headers > All" :-)

Also with "View > Headers > All", the/all headers are also displayed
for the *original* message, i.e. in the message pane or in a message
window.

So forwarding has absolutely nothing to do with it!

Apparently 'Your Name' never noticed all these headers in the message
pane/window, because there only some seven headers are displayed and the
rest is 'hidden' behind the rest of the scrolling (sub)pane.

Bottom line: Seems a case of foot-in-mouth disease.

[...]

On 12/12/2021 15.48, R.Wieser wrote:
> Carlos,
>
>> Ignoring.
>
> Thanks for telling me that you refuse/can't answer a simple question in
> regard to what the OPs aledged assertion would be. It makes you /at best/ a
> malicious troll.
>
> Although I had a bit of hope that you would recognise what I said and stop
> and think about what you're doing, my posts second audience is the other
> people here - making them aware of your shennigans.
>
>
> And by the way, I don't think you actually know very much. You just use a
> big word (like "RFC") and hope the other will than come up with the next
> step and tell you - after which you than can just claim that that was indeed
> what you ment.
>
> Nice trick though. Probably fools a newbie into thinking that you know a
> lot. Upto the point where they notice that you're never the source of the
> actual solution ...
>
> ... and by me pointing that out I might even expedite that process. :-)

Further ignoring _you_.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos,

> Further ignoring _you_.

Telling someone you're ignoring him is what they call a "contradictio in
terminis". :-)

Also, who cares that you are "ignoring" me. Its absolute meaningless,
knowing that that is the way you will handle anything-and-everything you
can't/refuse to cope with.

Look at yourself : you've conjured up a lie (and with it bashed someone
else!), and when you're confronted with it you just stick your head in the
sand.

But as I already said, currently only part of my posts with your name above
it are *for* you. most of it is now *about* you.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 12/12/2021 3:03 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 15.48, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Carlos,
>>
>>> Ignoring.
>>
>> Thanks for telling me that you refuse/can't answer a simple question in
>> regard to what the OPs aledged assertion would be. It makes you /at best/ a
>> malicious troll.
>>
>> Although I had a bit of hope that you would recognise what I said and stop
>> and think about what you're doing, my posts second audience is the other
>> people here - making them aware of your shennigans.
>>
>>
>> And by the way, I don't think you actually know very much. You just use a
>> big word (like "RFC") and hope the other will than come up with the next
>> step and tell you - after which you than can just claim that that was indeed
>> what you ment.
>>
>> Nice trick though. Probably fools a newbie into thinking that you know a
>> lot. Upto the point where they notice that you're never the source of the
>> actual solution ...
>>
>> ... and by me pointing that out I might even expedite that process. :-)
>
> Further ignoring _you_.

Since you replied to him, you're obviously not really ignoring him.

If you want to really ignore someone, killfile him.

On 13/12/2021 16.29, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 3:03 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 15.48, R.Wieser wrote:
>>> Carlos,
>>>
>>>> Ignoring.
>>>
>>> Thanks for telling me that you refuse/can't answer a simple question in
>>> regard to what the OPs aledged assertion would be.  It makes you /at
>>> best/ a
>>> malicious troll.
>>>
>>> Although I had a bit of hope that you would recognise what I said and
>>> stop
>>> and think about what you're doing, my posts second audience is the other
>>> people here - making them aware of your shennigans.
>>>
>>>
>>> And by the way, I don't think you actually know very much.   You just
>>> use a
>>> big word (like "RFC") and hope the other will than come up with the next
>>> step and tell you - after which you than can just claim that that was
>>> indeed
>>> what you ment.
>>>
>>> Nice trick though.  Probably fools a newbie into thinking that you
>>> know a
>>> lot.   Upto the point where they notice that you're never the source
>>> of the
>>> actual solution ...
>>>
>>> ... and by me pointing that out I might even expedite that process. :-)
>>
>> Further ignoring _you_.
>
>
> Since you replied to him, you're obviously not really ignoring him.
>
> If you want to really ignore someone, killfile him.
>

Well, I want to tell him that I will not bother to answer him :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 12/12/2021 20.12, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 04.39, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-11 22:43:36 +0000, Wolf K said:
>>>
>>>>> Think yourself lucky you're not sending the email via outlook.com your
>>>>> message would be lost in the noise compared to the headers ... but given
>>>>> those headers aren't all displayed by default, why would you care?
>>>>
>>>> .... and if there is a legal problem related to the email, the headers
>>>> may be crucial.
>>>
>>> The headers are mostly ridiculous garbage related to Google server setup.
>>>
>>> If Outlook is worse, I feel sorry for Outlook users because the Google
>>> header garbage is almost always ten times as long or more than the body is.
>>>
>>> Those ridiculously voluminous headers only show up when forwarding.
>>> They do not show up in Thunderbird when reading the original message.
>>>
>>> The two suggested Thunderbird settings that were implicated were
>>> Tools > Preferences > Composition > Forward messages inline
>>> View > Headers > All
>>>
>>> Leaving the first alone and changing the second solved the problem!
>>> View > Headers > Normal
>>
>> Well, of course :-D
>>
>> Nobody uses "View > Headers > All" :-)
>
> Also with "View > Headers > All", the/all headers are also displayed
> for the *original* message, i.e. in the message pane or in a message
> window.

True.

>
> So forwarding has absolutely nothing to do with it!
>
> Apparently 'Your Name' never noticed all these headers in the message
> pane/window, because there only some seven headers are displayed and the
> rest is 'hidden' behind the rest of the scrolling (sub)pane.

They are not really "all", either. When I want to see them, I use
ctrl-U, but I don't have them displayed for every email.

>
> Bottom line: Seems a case of foot-in-mouth disease.
>
> [...]
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 20.12, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2021 04.39, Your Name wrote:
> >>> On 2021-12-11 22:43:36 +0000, Wolf K said:
> >>>
> >>>>> Think yourself lucky you're not sending the email via outlook.com your
> >>>>> message would be lost in the noise compared to the headers ... but given
> >>>>> those headers aren't all displayed by default, why would you care?
> >>>>
> >>>> .... and if there is a legal problem related to the email, the headers
> >>>> may be crucial.
> >>>
> >>> The headers are mostly ridiculous garbage related to Google server setup.
> >>>
> >>> If Outlook is worse, I feel sorry for Outlook users because the Google
> >>> header garbage is almost always ten times as long or more than the body is.
> >>>
> >>> Those ridiculously voluminous headers only show up when forwarding.
> >>> They do not show up in Thunderbird when reading the original message.
> >>>
> >>> The two suggested Thunderbird settings that were implicated were
> >>> Tools > Preferences > Composition > Forward messages inline
> >>> View > Headers > All
> >>>
> >>> Leaving the first alone and changing the second solved the problem!
> >>> View > Headers > Normal
> >>
> >> Well, of course :-D
> >>
> >> Nobody uses "View > Headers > All" :-)
> >
> > Also with "View > Headers > All", the/all headers are also displayed
> > for the *original* message, i.e. in the message pane or in a message
> > window.
>
> True.
>
> >
> > So forwarding has absolutely nothing to do with it!
> >
> > Apparently 'Your Name' never noticed all these headers in the message
> > pane/window, because there only some seven headers are displayed and the
> > rest is 'hidden' behind the rest of the scrolling (sub)pane.
>
> They are not really "all", either.

Huh? Did you use ("View > Headers > All" and) the *scroll-bar* in the
headers (sub)pane of the message pane/window? AFAIK/AFAICT, all headers
are in that headers (sub)pane. If not, which one(s) do you think are
missing?

> When I want to see them, I use
> ctrl-U, but I don't have them displayed for every email.

Yes, that's the shortcut for "View -> Message Source", which shows
the headers and the rest of the message as it goes 'over the wire'. (And
of course I also have the default "View > Headers > Normal".)

> > Bottom line: Seems a case of foot-in-mouth disease.
> >
> > [...]

On 14/12/2021 15.48, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 20.12, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2021 04.39, Your Name wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-12-11 22:43:36 +0000, Wolf K said:

>>>>> Leaving the first alone and changing the second solved the problem!
>>>>> View > Headers > Normal
>>>>
>>>> Well, of course :-D
>>>>
>>>> Nobody uses "View > Headers > All" :-)
>>>
>>> Also with "View > Headers > All", the/all headers are also displayed
>>> for the *original* message, i.e. in the message pane or in a message
>>> window.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>>
>>> So forwarding has absolutely nothing to do with it!
>>>
>>> Apparently 'Your Name' never noticed all these headers in the message
>>> pane/window, because there only some seven headers are displayed and the
>>> rest is 'hidden' behind the rest of the scrolling (sub)pane.
>>
>> They are not really "all", either.
>
> Huh? Did you use ("View > Headers > All" and) the *scroll-bar* in the
> headers (sub)pane of the message pane/window? AFAIK/AFAICT, all headers
> are in that headers (sub)pane. If not, which one(s) do you think are
> missing?

Oh, I was looking at the list he posted.

I just activated the setting (I had not done so for years) and compared
to ctrl-U. Maybe "all", I don't know, because they are sorted in some
manner. Not easy to compare.

>
>> When I want to see them, I use
>> ctrl-U, but I don't have them displayed for every email.
>
> Yes, that's the shortcut for "View -> Message Source", which shows
> the headers and the rest of the message as it goes 'over the wire'. (And
> of course I also have the default "View > Headers > Normal".)
>
>>> Bottom line: Seems a case of foot-in-mouth disease.
>>>
>>> [...]

--
Cheers, Carlos.