Re: [2822upd] Resent-* MUSTard

On 5/1/07 at 3:46 AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:

>2822 gives no reason why there's an offending MUST NOT about 
>Resent-* in automatic processing.

2822 does not say that Resent-* "MUST NOT be used in automatic 
processing". Don't partially quote. Read it again, in context.

As for why: It is because there was confusion about what MUAs ought 
to do with those fields, and using them for the reply command, and 
"*OTHER SUCH* actions" (was enough emphasis added?) would do the 
wrong thing.

>I use MIME when I forward mails or news, not Resent-*

Resent-* are *never* used when you "forward". That is also said in 
quite clearly in 3.6.6 (in the Note).

>but even if I'd use Resent-* I don't see why there could be multiple "authors"

So you've backed off of your original argument about the need for 
Resent-Sender (because it is needed when Resent-From is not identical 
to the sender) and you're just complaining about Ned's example?

I think it's more important for interoperability of implementations 
to keep the syntax of Resent-From and From identical (and the way 
it's always been) than to go verify that nobody is using this 
particular feature.

>>>Why can't we deprecate this rubbish in favour of the much clearer 
>>>MIME forwarding ?

Because it is not forwarding. It is resending. And I, and a bunch of 
other folks that I know, will scream bloody murder if you take that 
feature out of our mail clients. Forwarding (MIME or otherwise) does 
not have the same functionality as resending and therefore does not 
address the same problem.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated