[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2

2007-02-07 03:22:08

Arnt Gulbrandsen writes:
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.

Perhaps: SHOULD ensure that there is sufficient information in the chain of 'Received' fields that a human observer can see what happened?