On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:00:06PM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> The -t documentation in the Exim documentation states:
>
> If there are any "Resent-" headers in the message, an error is
> generated, and Exim gives up. RFC 2822 talks about different sets
> of "Resent-" headers (when a message is resent several times), and
> it is not at all clear how -t should operate in this situation.
> Experiments with Sendmail have shown that it amalgamates multiple
> sets of "Resent-" headers when -t is used. This does not seem to
> be in the spirit of RFC 2822.
>
> I have now been informed by no less an authority than RMS that emacs
> expects an MTA to "handle" Resent- header lines. Does anybody have any
> views on some kind of reasonable specification? Note that a message that
> starts off
>
> Resent-From: xxxx
> Resent-To: xxxx
> Resent-To: xxxx
> Resent-To: xxxx
> Resent-From: xxxx
>
> is ambiguous as to which "to"s belong to which "from". I don't want to
> have to add artificial intelligence to Exim to try to sort out this kind
> of problem.
My question to start with is this:
Why does Exim give up with -t if Resent- headers are present?
RFC2822 states that if there are multiple resent-from's, then a
resent-sender must be supplied.
It also states:
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. No other fields in the message are changed when
resent fields are added.
So if the fields are getting munged, isn't that because of a broken MUA?
RFC2822 doesn't state if the Resent- headers should be introduced by the
MTA or MUA. I might be evry wrong (someone please tell me if i am :) but
I thought these were added by the MUA. Is RMS suggesting the the MTA
handle these?
if he is, and it should, then I don't see a problem - RFC2822 stated
how the headers should be added and grouped together :-)
