Subject: Re: Re[2]: bouncing/redirecting messages

From: Gregory Hicks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT)

> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:12:54 +0200 (CET)
> From: Vadim Zeitlin <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: bouncing/redirecting messages
> 
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:49:45 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Mark 
Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> MC> >    c) don't set any other fields, in particular from, reply-to, 
sender
> MC> 
> MC> You SHOULD sent from, in order to generate a ReSent-From header.
> 
>  Thanks! I should have read (2)822 better myself... However when I
> tried to compensate for this by reading it carefully now I found 2 
more
> questions related to the following extracts from the section 3.6.6 or 
the
> RFC 2822:
> 
> 1. """ The "Resent-Message-ID:" field SHOULD be sent. """
> 
>    How important is this requirment? I don't generate the Message-ID 
header
>    for the normal messages as I believe it's not the MUAs job at all
>    (whatever Pine does). Is Resent-Message-ID really somehow different 
from
>    the normal header or is there really a good reason to add it?

Same as the 'normal' Message-ID header but with "Resent-" in front of 
it.

> 
> 2. """  All of the resent fields corresponding to a particular 
resending of
>         the message SHOULD be together.  Each new set of resent fields 
is
>         prepended to the message; that is, the most recent set of 
resent
>         fields appear earlier in the message. """
> 
>    The first requirment is satisfied by c-client, however the second 
one
>    is not as the Resent-XXX fields appear after all the others -- and,
>    apparently, this was done intentionally. Is this correct? Also, 
this
>    seems to imply that Resent-XXX fields should *not* be quoted as 
Pine
>    does, does anyone have any additional insights into this (BTW, 
thanks
>    to David Funk for this reply about the Received: header)?

They should not be quoted at all.  I just used Pine at my ISP to
"bounce" a message back to me.  This is what the relevant headers
looked like:  (I cut out all the Received: headers...)

-------------------------------------------
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gregory Hicks <ghicks>
Reply-To: Gregory Hicks <ghicks>
Subject: Testing Resent headers
To: [email-masked]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-MD5: L+Hwhro/C63q2OK55SLuAw==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.4.2 SunOS 5.8 sun4u sparc 
X-UIDL: b388a23b7d96c6d12fe5374354b375c4
ReSent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
ReSent-From: Gregory Hicks <[email-masked]>
ReSent-To: [email-masked]
ReSent-Subject: Testing Resent headers
ReSent-Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 611
-------------------------------------------

The above are correct and seem to be what I have seen over the past X
years [1] of sending email...

The above is the 'proper' way to resend email.  MUAs like dtmail,
Outlook, Netscape and such do not do it properly.

My $0.02 worth.

Regards,
Gregory Hicks
Postmaster, Cadence.COM

[1]  Where X is a large number > 30, but at least seeing the headers 
     since 1984...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hicks                           | Principal Systems Engineer
Cadence Design Systems                  | Direct:   408.576.3609
555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1             | Fax:      408.894.3479
San Jose, CA 95134                      | Internet: [email-masked]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
ignorance or stupidity.

Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton

---

From: Vadim Zeitlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:55:03 +0200 (CET)

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Gregory Hicks <[email-masked]> wrote:

GH> > 1. """ The "Resent-Message-ID:" field SHOULD be sent. """
GH> > 
GH> >    How important is this requirment? I don't generate the Message-ID 
GH> header
GH> >    for the normal messages as I believe it's not the MUAs job at all
GH> >    (whatever Pine does). Is Resent-Message-ID really somehow different 
GH> from
GH> >    the normal header or is there really a good reason to add it?
GH> 
GH> Same as the 'normal' Message-ID header but with "Resent-" in front of 
GH> it.

 Ok, I guess my question wasn't clear so let me rephrase it: the normal
Message-ID will be generated by the transport layer if I don't provide one
and, as I think that the server knows better how to generate the
Message-IDs, I leave this to it. The question is whether the same will be
done for Resent-Message-ID. And, if not, how important is it to have one
knowing that it isn't supposed to be used for anything anyhow.

GH> > 2. """  All of the resent fields corresponding to a particular 
GH> resending of
GH> >         the message SHOULD be together.  Each new set of resent fields 
GH> is
GH> >         prepended to the message; that is, the most recent set of 
GH> resent
GH> >         fields appear earlier in the message. """
GH> > 
GH> >    The first requirment is satisfied by c-client, however the second 
GH> one
GH> >    is not as the Resent-XXX fields appear after all the others -- and,
GH> >    apparently, this was done intentionally. Is this correct? Also, 
GH> this
GH> >    seems to imply that Resent-XXX fields should *not* be quoted as 
GH> Pine
GH> >    does, does anyone have any additional insights into this (BTW, 
GH> thanks
GH> >    to David Funk for this reply about the Received: header)?
GH> 
GH> They should not be quoted at all.  I just used Pine at my ISP to
GH> "bounce" a message back to me.  This is what the relevant headers
GH> looked like:  (I cut out all the Received: headers...)

 I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding here: of course, the last
Resent-XXX fields shouldn't be quoted. But now try bouncing the message
again -- you'll see that the first set of them *will* be quoted by Pine (at
least it is by 4.32 I've tested it with). The question is whether it is
correct to quote the already present Resent fields, not the ones I add.

 Thanks,
VZ

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/imap/c-client-list.html
------------------------------------------------------------------