Reply-To and Resent-Reply-To

Thread View: comp.mail.headers

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by Victor Miller Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:00

#135

Author: Victor Miller
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:00

66 lines
3524 bytes

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?

---- Forwarded mail ---

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

     4.2.  FORWARDING

          Some systems permit mail recipients to  forward  a  message,
     retaining  the original headers, by adding some new fields.  This
     standard supports such a service, through the "Resent-" prefix to
     field names.

          Whenever the string "Resent-" begins a field name, the field
     has  the  same  semantics as a field whose name does not have the
     prefix.  However, the message is assumed to have  been  forwarded
     by  an original recipient who attached the "Resent-" field.  This
     new field is treated as being more recent  than  the  equivalent,
     original  field.   For  example, the "Resent-From", indicates the
     person that forwarded the message, whereas the "From" field indi-
     cates the original author.

          Use of such precedence  information  depends  upon  partici-
     pants'  communication needs.  For example, this standard does not
     dictate when a "Resent-From:" address should receive replies,  in
     lieu of sending them to the "From:" address.

     Note:  In general, the "Resent-" fields should be treated as con-
            taining  a  set  of information that is independent of the
            set of original fields.  Information for  one  set  should
            not  automatically be taken from the other.  The interpre-
            tation of multiple "Resent-" fields, of the same type,  is
            undefined.

So the standard clearly does not require sending replies to resent-reply-to.

Now, as to what we should do: the basic question is "what is indented".
If you reply to a forwarded message, who did you really intend to
talk to?  I can't see an overriding case for selecting one case over
the other.  Usually reply is intended for the message author; who is
the "author" of a forwarded message?  It depends on context that is
not within the message itself.  Based on this ambigous situation,
I can't see changing mailtool in this case.
-------- End forwarded mail ---------


--
		Victor S. Miller
		Bitnet: VICTOR at WATSON
		Internet: victor@watson.ibm.com
		IBM, TJ Watson Research Center
		"Great artists steal; lesser artists borrow" Igor Stravinsky

Re: Reply-To and Resent-Reply-To

#136

Author: Neil Rickert
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:29

41 lines
2395 bytes

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.

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads