On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Mark Lentczner wrote:
For example, RFC 2822 says "Resent fields are used to identify a message as
having been reintroduced into the transport system by a user." -- and yet none
of the mailing lists I use, which seem to be doing precisely this, add such
headers.
I think the choice of the word "user" is intended to exclude mailing
lists.
Nor do any of my mailers when I choose "Forward".
The Resent- headers are explicitly not for forwarding messages, in either
the encapsulated message sense or in the alias address sense. Read the
second paragraph after the syntax in section 3.6.6 of RFC 2822. This has
implications for other parts of the current MARID drafts, but PRA itself
is OK.
So, practice and RFC are in conflict. When, in practice, are these
fields added?
Using the "bounce" (i.e. resend) function in Pine or Mutt, for example.
On the other hand, RFC 2822 says "Resent fields are strictly informational.
They MUST NOT be used in the normal processing of replies or other such
automatic actions on messages." So, while it might represent who re-injected
the mail, the user is to treat the mail as coming from the Sender:/From:
addresses. Hence, perhaps that is the identity that should be checked.
That wouldn't make sense. An example use of the resend function where I
work is our staff who read webmaster or postmaster email resending a
message to the person best able to deal with it. Clearly this person
should reply to the original sender of the message since that is who has
the problem, but they received the message from the webmaster/postmaster
staff so that is what should be checked.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
CAPE WRATH TO RATTRAY HEAD INCLUDING ORKNEY: SOUTHEAST 3 INCREASES 5 TO 7.
SCATTERED SHOWERS THEN RAIN. GOOD BECOMES OCCASIONALLY MODERATE. SLIGHT BUILDS
MODERATE OR ROUGH IN EAST.