On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 10:33 -0700, Harry Katz wrote:
Lastly, the RFC states that Resent- headers are not "intended" for use
in some types of forwarding, but *does not* prescribe that they MUST NOT
be used in this way.
Thus, we believe our proposed use of Resent- headers is indeed
permissible. I would further suggest, given the threat posed to email
by the spam crisis, that this would be an "opportune moment" to broaden
the "intended" use of these fields.
Why reuse existing fields which mean something different, instead of
adding new fields or perhaps adding to the Received: header?
It seems strange to hijack the Resent-* fields instead of just doing
something new.
Since we're discussing RFC2822 -- your mail software fails to follow the
recommendation of §3.6.4 that reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:"
and "References:" fields. Please could you ensure that this gets fixed.
It is impolite to participate in public fora while breaking the
threading information.
--
dwmw2