Re: [2822upd] Resent-* MUSTard

Bruce Lilly wrote:
> It appears from recent discussions that some clarification may well be
> desirable w.r.t. what is or isn't desired, and perhaps we need some
> discussion about desirability issues.
>
> To take an example, consider a case where A sends a message to B, and B
> resends to C, who happens to be on vacation.  Now a vacation autoresponder
> SHOULD use the Return-Path field for notification (3834 sect. 4), but:
>   
I'm afraid that the entire surmise (use case) here is broken from the 
get go.   This is NOT a resend, it is a forward.    Semantically they 
are hugely different and should be dealt with in entirely different 
ways.   Attempting to specify a slightly less broken method for dealing 
with a broken use case is not necessary and likely harmful to the other 
mainstream use cases that the language addresses today.

People have been misinterpreting the resend use cases for years.   A 
review of the proceedings leading up to 2821 and 2822 would be worth 
your time.

Cheers.

-- 
Steve Hole 
Chief Technical Officer
PlaNet Correspondence Technologies

424-4922 (wk)
905-9116 (mb)

mailto:[email protected]