Bruce Lilly wrote:
It appears from recent discussions that some clarification may well be
desirable w.r.t. what is or isn't desired, and perhaps we need some
discussion about desirability issues.
To take an example, consider a case where A sends a message to B, and B
resends to C, who happens to be on vacation. Now a vacation autoresponder
SHOULD use the Return-Path field for notification (3834 sect. 4), but:
I'm afraid that the entire surmise (use case) here is broken from the
get go. This is NOT a resend, it is a forward. Semantically they
are hugely different and should be dealt with in entirely different
ways. Attempting to specify a slightly less broken method for dealing
with a broken use case is not necessary and likely harmful to the other
mainstream use cases that the language addresses today.
People have been misinterpreting the resend use cases for years. A
review of the proceedings leading up to 2821 and 2822 would be worth
your time.
Cheers.
--
Steve Hole
Chief Technical Officer
PlaNet Correspondence Technologies
424-4922 (wk)
905-9116 (mb)
mailto:shole(_at_)planetct(_dot_)com