Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id EAA05334; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:30:44 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:30:43 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id EAA05321; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:30:37 -0400
From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
Message-Id: <199509190830.EAA05321@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <20556-0@domen.uninett.no>; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:30:20 +0200
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>,
        ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Resent- facility
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:10:18 +0200." <"aun.uninet.814:18.09.95.13.17.54"@uninett.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:30:18 +0200
Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

To Eric:

I've found the MIME "forwarding" construct useful because I have a
function in my UA that is able to "unpack" the "inner" message, so that
I can reply to it if I want to.
This is certainly an area in which UA capabilities interact with what the
user wants.

It seems we'll have to do a round of discovering what the world looks like
before we can start fixing on what the recommendations should be.

(The autoresponder in question doesn't look at Resent-* fields by design;
it copies them to the log file so that I can tell what happened, but it
does that with fruit-of-the-day: fields too. When I wrote it, I didn't think
that replying to a Resent-from: or a Resent-reply-to: would be terribly useful,
since they don't seem to have a well-defined meaning)

         Harald A