Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199509150337.XAA22103@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Mark Crispin <MRC@panda.com>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>, drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to header 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Sep 1995 17:28:50 PDT."
             <MailManager.811124930.2030.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> 
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 23:37:12 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> > (However, the Chair is willing to consider proposals to deprecate
> > Resent-* and replace it with a similar but better defined mechanism
> > using new field names.  If these new fields were useful for mailing
> > lists, the Chair would still consider them within the scope of this
> > group.  Otherwise, interested parties are invited to develop proposals
> > for new headers for mailing lists outside of the DRUMS group.)
> 
> I think that ReSent is too entrenched.  I wonder, though, if it would be
> possible to introduce a requirement that all ReSent-* headers be written in a
> block starting with ReSent-Date, and that it is:
>         1) mandatory that new ReSent headers be at the end of a header
>         2) forbidden to relocate or reorder ReSent headers

Resent-*  may be entrenched in that lots of mailers generate it under
some conditions, but it is also fairly useless because (a) it's used for 
so many different things that you can't tell what it means, and (b) there 
are some mailers that will bounce messages if the Resent-* headers don't 
appear in matched sets.  

Keith