Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM>
Sender: Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>
Subject: Re: Resent- facility
To: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Cc: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199509182018.QAA11298@CS.UTK.EDU>
Message-Id: <MailManager.811457013.14609.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 21:54:57 +0200, Eric Thomas wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 05:38:35 +1000 Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> said:
> >I'm not sure about that. I am  coming to the opinion that Resent headers
> >should  be treated  in much  the  same way  as Received,  that is,  they
> >provide a log of message relaying,  that can be examined, but apart from
> >that,  should basically  be ignored.  (...) That  would imply  that UA's
> >should  generally  take  no  specific  notice  of  Resent  headers  when
> >displaying,  replying, etc,  to a  message that  contains them,  instead
> >using purely the original headers.

This is the historical intent of the ReSent headers.  Believe me, there were
considerable flames about this back then.  I should know, because MM (which I
maintained at the time) and Hermes both had this capability as a *distinct*
capability from forward.  Dave Crocker called it "ReSent" in spite of the fact
that both the MM (which use Remailed) and Hermes (which used Redistributed)
communities resented this change.

> Well, there is  a significant user base that has  been consistently doing
> exactly   the  opposite,   taking   "Resent-"  tags   to  supersede   the
> corresponding non-resent tags.

That's a mistake.  If the message was intended to be forwarded, it would have
been forwarded.

> This is the  way I read the standard and I
> guess  it's   another  of   these  philosophical  differences.

If DRUMS changes the meaning of ReSent, I will promptly write a new RFC that
restores the old meaning.  Let there be no mistake about it, there is a
community that insists upon having the "use original envelope" meaning.

> 1. If  you "resend"  a message  to me  and my  UA completely  ignores the
>    "Resent-" lines, I am  going to be scratching my head  in search for a
>    reason why "the system" sent me this thing which was obviously not for
>    me.

That is a deficiency in your UA.  Your UA should display the ReSent headers.

>    If I were Joe PC User, on
>    the other  hand, I'd call the  support folks to report  ANOTHER BUG IN
>    THE  MAIL SYSTEM  and ask  if this  is how  much they  care about  the
>    PRIVACY OF  PEOPLE'S MAIL because this  could have been the  message I
>    sent my girlfriend this morning  landing into someone else's in-basket
>    by mistake.

If your UA mislead Joe PC User, it's a bug in the UA.  If Joe PC User is an
idiot, it's a bug in Joe PC User.  UA bugs and idiot users are something that
support people need to cope with all the time.

It's not a bug in the ReSent capability, which is performing as intended.

> 2. If  the only purpose  of the  tag is to  be ignored, providing  only a
>    "Received:" like trace, this would  have been clearly specified in the
>    standard.

Trust me, I was there.  ReSent was intended to standardize and document what
MM and Hermes provided with the Remailed and Redistributed headers.

> Actually, what's interesting is that where RFC822 mentions forwarding, it
> describes the  "Resent-" method.

Blame certain individuals who didn't want "two kinds of forwarding".