[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       c-client
Subject:    Re[4]: bouncing/redirecting messages
From:       Vadim Zeitlin <Vadim.zeitlin () dptmaths ! ens-cachan ! fr>
Date:       2002-06-12 17:55:03
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Gregory Hicks <ghicks@cadence.com> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]