RE: mostly open issues

["Barry Leiba" <leiba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> | > There is another twist on this. I venture to say that a Sieve
> | implementation
> | > MAY choose to forward a message using MIME encapsulation. In such a case
> | > resent headers MUST NOT be inserted. This should be enough for seriously
> | > considering Alan's suggestion.
> |
> | I venture to say that it must not.  Have you missed the following
> | paragraph from the -04 Sieve spec?:
> |
> |    The forward command performs an MTA-style forward--that is, what  you
> |    get  from  a .forward file using sendmail under UNIX.  The address on
> |    the SMTP envelope is replaced with the one on the forward command and
> |    the  message  is  sent  back out.  (This is not an MUA-style forward,
> |    which creates a new message with a different sender and  message  ID,
> |    wrapping the old message in a new one.)
> 
> I've lost some antecedents in this discussion.  What part of "Alan's
> suggestion" are you disagreeing with, Barry?  That there is a need for
> "resend" itself, or with Tomas' suggestion that "forward" possibly do a
> MIME-wrapped resend?

Alan, compare the "I venture to say" phrases, which was the clue to
what I was talking about.  To spell it out, my post was only taking 
issue with Tomas's statement that one could implement "forward" in
the manner he suggested.  I said nothing more, and I meant nothing 
more.  (In fact, I don't care much what the decision about the "resent"
tags is, so I didn't comment on it.)

Barry Leiba, Multimedia Messaging  (leiba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba