Sounds like I opened a Pandora's box about redirecting messages. hehe At least it's nice to know I'm not the only one who has qualms (pro or con) for the way Entourage handles redirection. As usual, the Mac community is full of different thoughts and ideas...exactly why I love it! Thanks to all for the various input I've received. :-)
On 12/5/02 10:32 PM, Peter C.S. Adams at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thus spake Michael D. Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, circa 12/5/2002: >> Maybe redirect is supposed to work that way...it forwards the >> message to someone else *exactly* as it was, including the To: field. > > Almost. This is exactly the way redirect should work (although there is a > bit of controversy about it, apparently, in mail admin circles): all of the > original message's headers are maintained, and the MUA adds Resent-To, > Resent-From, and Resent-Date headers. The only part of this behavior I would > change is that Entourage retains the date of the original message, meaning > it is sorted chronologically below where the user probably would expect it. > I believe this is technically correct, but I have seen impassioned arguments > on both sides of this point. > -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
