On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Gregory Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GH> > 1. """ The "Resent-Message-ID:" field SHOULD be sent. """ GH> > GH> > How important is this requirment? I don't generate the Message-ID GH> header GH> > for the normal messages as I believe it's not the MUAs job at all GH> > (whatever Pine does). Is Resent-Message-ID really somehow different GH> from GH> > the normal header or is there really a good reason to add it? GH> GH> Same as the 'normal' Message-ID header but with "Resent-" in front of GH> it. Ok, I guess my question wasn't clear so let me rephrase it: the normal Message-ID will be generated by the transport layer if I don't provide one and, as I think that the server knows better how to generate the Message-IDs, I leave this to it. The question is whether the same will be done for Resent-Message-ID. And, if not, how important is it to have one knowing that it isn't supposed to be used for anything anyhow. GH> > 2. """ All of the resent fields corresponding to a particular GH> resending of GH> > the message SHOULD be together. Each new set of resent fields GH> is GH> > prepended to the message; that is, the most recent set of GH> resent GH> > fields appear earlier in the message. """ GH> > GH> > The first requirment is satisfied by c-client, however the second GH> one GH> > is not as the Resent-XXX fields appear after all the others -- and, GH> > apparently, this was done intentionally. Is this correct? Also, GH> this GH> > seems to imply that Resent-XXX fields should *not* be quoted as GH> Pine GH> > does, does anyone have any additional insights into this (BTW, GH> thanks GH> > to David Funk for this reply about the Received: header)? GH> GH> They should not be quoted at all. I just used Pine at my ISP to GH> "bounce" a message back to me. This is what the relevant headers GH> looked like: (I cut out all the Received: headers...) I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding here: of course, the last Resent-XXX fields shouldn't be quoted. But now try bouncing the message again -- you'll see that the first set of them *will* be quoted by Pine (at least it is by 4.32 I've tested it with). The question is whether it is correct to quote the already present Resent fields, not the ones I add. Thanks, VZ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: http://www.washington.edu/imap/c-client-list.html ------------------------------------------------------------------