On 5/1/07 at 3:46 AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
2822 gives no reason why there's an offending MUST NOT about
Resent-* in automatic processing.
2822 does not say that Resent-* "MUST NOT be used in automatic
processing". Don't partially quote. Read it again, in context.
As for why: It is because there was confusion about what MUAs ought
to do with those fields, and using them for the reply command, and
"*OTHER SUCH* actions" (was enough emphasis added?) would do the
I use MIME when I forward mails or news, not Resent-*
Resent-* are *never* used when you "forward". That is also said in
quite clearly in 3.6.6 (in the Note).
but even if I'd use Resent-* I don't see why there could be multiple "authors"
So you've backed off of your original argument about the need for
Resent-Sender (because it is needed when Resent-From is not identical
to the sender) and you're just complaining about Ned's example?
I think it's more important for interoperability of implementations
to keep the syntax of Resent-From and From identical (and the way
it's always been) than to go verify that nobody is using this
Why can't we deprecate this rubbish in favour of the much clearer
MIME forwarding ?
Because it is not forwarding. It is resending. And I, and a bunch of
other folks that I know, will scream bloody murder if you take that
feature out of our mail clients. Forwarding (MIME or otherwise) does
not have the same functionality as resending and therefore does not
address the same problem.
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>