Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199509181317.JAA01401@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:10:18 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: Resent- facility
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
cc: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:55:00 +0200 from
             Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:55:00 +0200 Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no said:

>The "forward" option (which I *heartily* support recommending as The Way
>to move messages to someone who needs to see it)

For what little it may be worth,  I can't stand it when people forward me
mail  in this  manner. Usually  it's  because they  want me  to answer  a
question someone  asked them. So, I  have to retype or  cut+paste all the
addresses, because they're  not in the header. When people  resend, I can
simply REPLY ALL. This is  particularly annoying when people forward mail
from X.400 users with addresses that require escaping.

>     When an UA wishes to send a message that has arrived in its mailbox
>     to  another  mailbox while  retaining  the  illusion that  it  came
>     directly from the original sender,

Sorry, but this is nonsense. There is no "illusion" that it came from the
original  sender, because  the Resent-  fields clearly  document who  has
resent the  message. If you  want to preserve  the illusion that  it came
from the  original sender, you need  a RFC821-level resend that  does not
alter the  header. The  only reason  it works  in your  case is  that the
autoresponder software  you use ignores the  "Resent-" fields completely,
which  is certainly  not  commendable behaviour  (what's  the purpose  of
having them in the first place if you're going to say that they should be
ignored???)

  Eric