Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA08873; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:50:02 -0400
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA08855; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:49:58 -0400
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id QAA25630; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:49:52 -0400
Message-Id: <199510032049.QAA25630@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Mark Crispin <MRC@panda.com>
cc: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>, hta@dale.uninett.no,
        Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>,
        drums@CS.UTK.EDU, moore@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Oct 1995 11:59:55 PDT."
             <MailManager.812746795.274.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> 
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 16:49:45 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> It has been well-established that LISTSERV is broken software.

I saw Eric's comment as a concise response to Harald's request for an
explanation of how LISTSERV works with respect to Resent-*.

Whether LISTSERV is "broken" is not so much an issue for this group.
We're here to fix problems with the existing mail specifications.
Sometimes these problems are caused by conflicting interpretations of
the specifications, and in those cases we need to pick an
interpretation that resolves the conflict.  But inviting arguments
about who is "broken" will only slow us down.

Since we want to resolve these interoperability problems without
adversely impacting the installed base, it is helpful for the members
of this working group to be aware of how LISTSERV (as well as
sendmail, MH, and even Pine) work in particular cases.

Keith