On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 10:03 -0700, Jim Lyon wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2004 at 1:47:32 AM. William Leibzon quotes RFC
2822 and argues that SenderID's use of Resent-From is inconsistent with
RFC 2822. I disagree.
Nevertheless, others take a different view, and it is most certainly
inconsistent with current practice. Given such disagreement, is there
some reason why you consider the {ab,}use of Resent-From: header to be
more appropriate than the introduction of a new header about which there
would be no such disagreement?
If consensus is being sought, surely it makes sense to use a new header
which does not have alternative usage and meaning, unless there is an
overriding reason for it to be 'Resent-From:'?
Btw, since we're quoting RFC2822 at each other, perhaps you should pay
attention to §3.6.4:
Though optional, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field.
Furthermore, reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and
"References:" fields as appropriate, as described below.
...and to RFC2119:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Can you explain in accordance with RFC2119 precisely how the full
implications were weighed when you decided to post your reply without a
References: or In-Reply-To: header, thus detaching your reply from the
thread to which you were responding and causing inconvenience to all
members of the mailing list who wish to use a 'threaded' view of its
messages?
Please have the courtesy to use a non-broken mail client if you
participate in public fora.
--
dwmw2