On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Tony Finch wrote:
> If the message has actually been resent twice there should be a
> Received: header between the sets of Resent- headers.
Maybe. Maybe that's the "right" interpretation of the RFC. But even if
it is, I don't believe many - certainly not a significant number - of
MUAs actually set things up. So I don't think one can rely on it.
> Although it's horrible from the point of view of history and practice,
> I think RFC 2822 is reasonably clear about the intended behaviour.
Again, maybe. But I don't think people pay much attention.
> See the syntax for "fields" on page 18, which states that Resent-
> headers are to be interleaved with Received: headers. I think Pine
> is working to an older more ambiguous spec.
There you go. A prime example.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
