> On 5/1/07 at 5:12 PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > > 2. Which Return-Path (2821 issue resurfaces); 2822 says "No other fields
> >> in the message are changed when resent fields are added", and taken at
> >> face value, that includes Return-Path.
> >
> >At the point where the redirection is done there isn't a
> >return-path, only an envelope. 2822bis does not and should not
> >discuss envelope issues - that's for 2821bis.
> This is the one thing on which I disagree with Ned.
Actually, I don't think we disagree. Bruce was talking about automatic agents
and I somehow managed to conflate in my subsequent discussion of resending.
I do think that the further away you get from final delivery the less sense it
makes to have automatic resending agents. But I don't think there should be any
hard rules about this.
> It is perfectly
> reasonable to resend post-delivery.
Absolutely. I do it myself all the time.
> In that case, you'll have
> Resent-* fields prepended to the message which may already have a
> Return-Path. It will get a new Return-Path when it is delivered to
> the mailbox in the Resent-To, and that will be the MAIL FROM of the
> resender.
I think we need to deal with the removal of return-path in a more
general way that's not specific to resending.
> Maybe there's an argument for removing a Return-Path before
> prepending the Resent-* fields, but that's a different discussion.
Exactly.
Ned
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.