... and then Richard Pieri says:
} The problem with your definition of "originator" is that it conflicts
} with the RFC-822 usage:
}
} source = [ trace ] ; net traversals
} originator ; original mail
} [ resent ] ; forwarded
The problem here seems to boil down to a disagreement over who
originates a message. One one side, there is the assertion that a
messages originator is immutable; on the other, that it changes when a
message is resent.
If a message is sent to a mailing list that is nothing more than
a distibution list (i.e. the equivalent of sending it directly to
listname-outgoing), then one would not expect the MTA to alter or add a
Reply-To: header. I haven't seen any disagreement on this view.
A message sent to Majordomo (or any other list administration software)
may be considered to be a different case. The message has been
delivered to something different than a simple distribution list. It
has been delivered to a place where it may be altered (e.g. fronters and
footers added, Subject: altered, subject to approval, etc.). At that
point, I can be views as having been deliveredy to Majordomo, acting on
behalf of the list-owner.
At the point where Majordomo resends the message, may be considered
as having originated a message. If the message is received by an
individual and is then resent, it's considered to have a new originator.
Majordomo, acting on the list owsner's behalf, is agruable performing
the same operation.
--
--- -- - - - - - - - - <gabe@mystery.com>
Follow-Ups:
References:
-
Re: Reply-To
From: Richard Pieri <ratinox@unilab.dfci.harvard.edu>
|
|
