Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA01654; Sat, 9 May 1998 05:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Sat, 9 May 1998 05:04:24 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA01613; Sat, 9 May 1998 05:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA01601; Sat, 9 May 1998 05:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 20114 invoked by uid 666); 9 May 1998 09:04:34 -0000 Date: 9 May 1998 09:04:33 -0000 Message-ID: <19980509090433.20112.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mail-Followup-To: drums@cs.utk.edu From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: subversion of WGs by document editors References: <19980508040727.708.qmail@cr.yp.to> <19980508070611.2469.qmail@cr.yp.to> <28626.894679300@munnari.OZ.AU> <19980509032025.17128.qmail@cr.yp.to> <199805090527.WAA18753@baygate.bayarea.net> <19980509071328.19524.qmail@cr.yp.to> <29635.894699016@munnari.OZ.AU> <19980509074850.19826.qmail@cr.yp.to> <29812.894702202@munnari.OZ.AU> Robert Elz writes: > It does not say that a To/Cc/Bcc is > required in the message that was forwarded though, Look seven lines higher: ``... forward a message, RETAINING THE ORIGINAL HEADERS, by adding some new fields.'' (Emphasis added.) As usual, it would be nice if you read 822 before commenting on it. > In any case, the message would (by your rules) still be valid. No. It violates requirements in the spec. ---Dan 50000 new aliases in 6 seconds. http://pobox.com/~djb/fastforward.html