Subject: Re: Why doesn't formail generate a correct Reply header?

From: [email-masked] (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 14:22:47 +0200

"Chris Osborn" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> As to why Resent-From and Resent-Sender override Reply-To, well,
>> that's because RFC822 says so.

>I don't see that. I do see:
>          Use of such precedence  information  depends  upon  partici-
>     pants'  communication needs.  For example, this standard does not
>     dictate when a "Resent-From:" address should receive replies,  in
>     lieu of sending them to the "From:" address.

Ok, maybe I was a bit too presumptuous there.  No, RFC 822 doesn't explicitly
say that Resent-From: overrides Reply-To:.  But, it does say that fields
with and without the Resent- prefix can't be mixed.  I.e. they belong to two
different sets.  The fact that there is any Resent- field indicates that the
last sender was not the one who originally wrote the message.

I.e. this means, if I prefer Reply-To: to Resent-From:, I'm simply ignoring
all Resent- fields alltogether.  Therefore the only thing that can override
Resent-From: is a corresponding Resent-Reply-To:.

The fact that formail favours the Resent- set over the original set has
both its advantages and drawbacks.  I thought the advantages prevail
in the majority of the cases.

>> To get the behaviour you want either feed the message through
>> "formail -I Resent-"

>That will work as a wild card?

Yes.
Or use "-i Resent-" to disarm them, yet keep them around.

-- 
Sincerely,                                  [email-masked]
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"I have a *cunning* plan!"