Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2
2007-02-07 01:58:55
Philip Guenther writes:
it would instead say:
The message is send back out with the address from the redirect
command as an envelope recipient. Implementations MAY combine
separate redirects for a given message into a single submission with
multiple envelope recipients. (This is not an MUA-style forward,
which creates a new message with a different sender and message ID,
wrapping the old message in a new one.)
And yes, the elimination of the mention of .forward files in
intentional, as that irked some.
Are there any objections to the above change?
No, but maybe I want to add a requirement to prepend a new 'Received'
field so that a human tracing problems can tell what happened to the
message. Not 100% sure. In some (many?) cases there are enough Received
fields anyway.
Arnt
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2,
Arnt Gulbrandsen <=
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Alexey Melnikov
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Alexey Melnikov
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Mark E. Mallett
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther
- Interaction between redirect and editheader, Alexey Melnikov
- Let's get 3028bis published, Alexey Melnikov
|
Previous by Date: |
3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther |
Next by Date: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen |
Previous by Thread: |
3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther |
Next by Thread: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|