Re: [2822upd] Resent-* MUSTard

Pete Resnick wrote:
 
> I think SenderID plays fast and loose with Resent-*, and even if some
> of the things that it does are fine, some of the things it expects to
> happen are....shall we say, "experimental".

Putting it mildly, yes.   Maybe you've seen the other appeal, which in
fact did go to the IAB.  Unfortunately they decided that an experiment
doing "experimental" things with other RFCs or experiments is just that,
"experimental".

> like Ned I am suspicious of the way the "experiment" is being done. 

Sometimes they publish news aggregating the numbers of their experiment
with the numbers of the other experiment, because they claim that this
is "backwards compatibility".  It's ordinary embrace-extend-extinguish,
and as far as I'm concerned unethical behaviour.  The appeals are on
public record, enough said.

  [back to the MUST NOT]
>> How about rewording this statement:

>>+ mainly informational.  They MUST NOT be used in the normal
>>+ processing of replies or the creation of auto-responses [RFC 3834].
 
> ...or creating address book entries or filtering based on author of
> the text or sorting by date or..... Hey, since there's so many things
> that MUAs might automatedly do on messages in which they should look
> at From/Date/etc. instead of Resent-From/Resent-Date/etc., why don't
> we say "replying and things like that." Oh.....

Yes, why don't we ?  Maybe William misunderstood the statement, and I
also was never sure what "or other such automatic processing" is about,
only the replying or something more general.     

  [MIME forward vs. resend]
>> the desired effect is often the same, I got a mail and want you to 
>> read it.
 
> No, no, no. That's not what resending is for. As Dave Crocker said
> (in the jabber log noted in William's appeal), "Resent-* was designed
> to splice a new recipient into a direct exchange with the original
> author", not just to send a piece of mail I got to you.

Okay, can we say that in 2822upd ?  Maybe it's only me who thought
that it's a poor alternative to a MIME forward.  But if it's not only
me saying what it's designed for can help other readers to understand
the concept.

> The rest of your message I think Philip answered as I would have.

Yes, my attempt to get rid of Resent-From came about 25 years too late,
and after all it's not impossible to fix the "may add sender" in 4409.

Frank