Noticed this in my code review: https://petertodd.org/2016/segwit-consensus-critical-code-review#peer-to-peer-networking

Basically it looks like an attacker may be able to send nodes transactions with malleated witness data, which we don't consistently mark as possibly corrupted in AcceptToMemoryPool(). Result would be those txids being added to recentRejects, messing up propagation.

That said, I haven't actually tested this yet; about to go off to a conference, so if someone else wants to confirm for me that'd be much appreciated! Or if I'm wrong you're welcome to all laugh at my expense. :)

CC: @sdaftuar @sipa 

nSyncStarted++;
                const CBlockIndex *pindexStart = pindexBestHeader;
                /* If possible, start at the block preceding the currently
                   best known header.  This ensures that we always get a
                   non-empty list of headers back as long as the peer
                   is up-to-date.  With a non-empty response, we can initialise
                   the peer's known best block.  This wouldn't be possible
                   if we requested starting at pindexBestHeader and
                   got back an empty response.  */
                if (pindexStart->pprev)
                    pindexStart = pindexStart->pprev;
                LogPrint("net", "initial getheaders (%d) to peer=%d (startheight:%d)\n", pindexStart->nHeight, pto->id, pto->nStartingHeight);
                pto->PushMessage(NetMsgType::GETHEADERS, chainActive.GetLocator(pindexStart), uint256());
            }
        }
        
        
        
        if (!fReindex && !fImporting && !IsInitialBlockDownload())
        {
            GetMainSignals().Broadcast(nTimeBestReceived);
        }
        
        
        
        {