I note that this all confirms that use of Resent- headers as originally
invisioned by marid-core drafts is incorrect as these headers are more
appropriate for use in manual MUA level resending of the message then
for automated MTA forwarding. This is basicly what Pete Resnick said
during the beginning of the Monday's jabber session.
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, John A. Martin wrote:
"Graham" == Graham Murray "Re: Resent-*"
Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:57:45 +0100
Graham> Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
writes:
>> Bouncing MUAs, shudder. Is that a pre-MIME MUA, or do you know
>> why it doesn't use message/rfc822 ? I'm just curious, because
>> I've never seen a Resent-* message.
Graham> I cannot speak for Pine, but gnus also allows resending
Graham> which will insert Resent-* headers. It also (and more
Graham> commonly) allows the forwarding as a message/rfc822 MIME
Graham> attachment. The difference is that when forwarding you are
Graham> creating a new message, which is shown as coming from you,
Graham> and can add your own text, or other MIME parts. When
Graham> resending, the message is sent unaltered (apart from the
Graham> addition of Resent-* headers) and the (forwarded to)
Graham> recipient sees the message as coming from the original
Graham> sender.
Graham> From the point of view of the recipient of the
Graham> forwarded/resent message, any reply to the forwarded
Graham> message will go to the forwarder but a reply to the resent
Graham> message goes to the original sender.
Graham> Thinking of it in terms of 'snail' mail. Using forwarding
Graham> as a message/rfc822 attachment is like receving a letter,
Graham> opening it, writing a covering note (something like, "I
Graham> think you might be interested in this", or "this was sent
Graham> to me by mistake") and enclosing the contents of the
Graham> original letter and the covering note in a new
Graham> envelope. Using the 'Resend' is like crossing out the
Graham> address on the envelope, writing the correction and
Graham> putting it back in the mail without opening the
Graham> envelope. (I know that this analogy is not quite right as
Graham> the original recipient of the email can see inside the
Graham> "envelope" before redirecting it)
Excellent explanation.
For years I have had a policy of PGP signing all my outgoing mail with
only trivial and clearly delineated exceptions. When I "bounce" a
mail to someone else without change, Gnus (and other MUAs I have used,
such as for example MH) adds resent header fields as per rfc2822 but
the Message-Id is unchanged and I do not sign the message. Had the
original author signed the entire body of the mail, my "bouncing" the
mail, or, more accurately, my _resending_ the mail would not modify
the signature nor the signed material. When I modify the message body
in any way I sign it and the message gets, among other things, a new
Message ID. I believe this to have been a respectable practice since
early on, and apart from signing, from long before PGP.
Resending, or "Bouncing", is, IMHO, indispensable.
jam
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com