On 5/1/07 at 5:12 PM -0700, ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
> > 2. Which Return-Path (2821 issue resurfaces); 2822 says "No other fields
>> in the message are changed when resent fields are added", and taken at
>> face value, that includes Return-Path.
>
>At the point where the redirection is done there isn't a
>return-path, only an envelope. 2822bis does not and should not
>discuss envelope issues - that's for 2821bis.
This is the one thing on which I disagree with Ned.
Actually, I don't think we disagree. Bruce was talking about automatic agents
and I somehow managed to conflate in my subsequent discussion of resending.
I do think that the further away you get from final delivery the less sense it
makes to have automatic resending agents. But I don't think there should be any
hard rules about this.
It is perfectly
reasonable to resend post-delivery.
Absolutely. I do it myself all the time.
In that case, you'll have
Resent-* fields prepended to the message which may already have a
Return-Path. It will get a new Return-Path when it is delivered to
the mailbox in the Resent-To, and that will be the MAIL FROM of the
resender.
I think we need to deal with the removal of return-path in a more
general way that's not specific to resending.
Maybe there's an argument for removing a Return-Path before
prepending the Resent-* fields, but that's a different discussion.
Exactly.
Ned