🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <VICTOR.92Oct16140020@terse.watson.ibm.com> victor@watson.ibm.com (Victor Miller) writes:
>I had always been under the impression that the proper way for a
>program to formulate the reply address for a piece of mail was as
>follows (here is a list of fields, go down the list and find the first
>that exists).
>
>Resent-Reply-To
>Resent-From
>Reply-To
>From
>
>so that if mail contained both a Resent-Reply-To and a Reply-To, the
>reply should go to the Resent-Reply-To.  I've looked at rfc822, and it
>seems a little murky on this.  Here is the "interpretation" from the
>postmastser at Sun.  I don't really agree with this.  Does anyone want
>to venture his opinion?

I'll stick my neck out, and venture an opinion.  It is not intended to
imply any official interpretation, but my view of a practical
interpretation.

In my view, there really should not be a "Resent-Reply-To:", but
regardless, the automatic reply should go first to "Reply-To:", and in
its absence, to "From:".  Those headers designate the author of the
mail, or the author's wishes.  If a respondent wishes to manually override
the default, that is obviously his choice.

I make a distinction you are not making.  I refer to a "forwarded"
message as a message which is enclosed in another message, perhaps with
a some deletions, and often with the addition of commentary.  A "resent"
message is essentially a verbatim copy of the original message, except
for the addition of the "Resent" headers.  For a "forwarded" message,
it is proper to reply to the forwarder.  For a "resent" message it is
appropriate to reply to the original author.

>---- Forwarded mail ---
>
>First the legal interpretation.  Here is the relevant text from RFC-822:

I see you too find it convenient to make a distinction between "forwarded"
and "resent" messages, except that you call them both by the same name.