🚀 go-pugleaf

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