Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id DAA19602; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 03:59:40 -0400
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id DAA19581; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 03:59:33 -0400
Received: from dale.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <07571-0@domen.uninett.no>; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 08:57:58 +0100
Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 
          by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA20863;
          Mon, 2 Oct 1995 21:17:25 +0100
Message-Id: <199510022017.VAA20863@dale.uninett.no>
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
cc: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>, drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Sep 1995 02:39:12 +0100." <199509250154.VAA03031@CS.UTK.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <20860.812665043.1@dale.uninett.no>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 21:17:24 +0100
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

Eric.....
just for fun, can't you write a short description of what Listserv does
when it considers Resent-* fields?

Apart from Listserv's behaviour, which I don't know, all I've seen so far
seems to indicate to me that Keith's suggested description of Resent-* headers
(depreciate in all but one carefully constrained case) is reasonable.

                        Harald A