Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA26771; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 11:03:07 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 11:03:06 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA26762; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 11:03:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199509241503.LAA26762@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9176; Sun, 24 Sep 95 17:03:00 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 7091; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 17:03:00 +0200 Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 16:57:55 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields To: Robert Elz cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:54:15 +1000 from Robert Elz On Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:54:15 +1000 Robert Elz said: >Please recall that the object of standards is to state desired >behaviour, not merely document all existing behaviour. That's fine, but not 13 years after the fact. We've been through that already. >Again I am saying they should be able to, not assuming they do. Its also >interesting that your view of what I assumed changed 100% between the >first paragrah and this one - that should have been a clue that you >weren't understanding what I was attempting to say. No, my view didn't change at all. You have clearly confused "do not use the Resent-* fields to determine message origin or show them by default" with "do not provide a command that allows Resent-* fields to be displayed upon request). >Which is not good (we know many of thses things are hopeless), but not a >disaster. Nothing breaks because of that, other than the ability of the >recipient to know the mail was redistributed to him, not sent directly. Which, I'm afraid, it's quite a serious problem. "Why did this guy write to me, I don't even know him!" >I am not sure what you are suggesting here. If you're suggesting leaving >something just like Resent-*, but sticking it in the body of the >message, rather than the headers, as that way the end users will see it, >then I think I will object - mailers should never mangle the body of the >message (it is bad enough when they mangle the headers). I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just saying that Resent-* is worthless as a reliable annotation of the forwarding decision. The only reliable annotation is one in the message body. Eric