Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: Christian.Huitema@mirsa.inria.fr (Christian Huitema)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: RFC-822 envelopes and X.400
Message-ID: <9102261004.AA12823@jerry.inria.fr>
Date: 26 Feb 91 10:15:21 GMT
Lines: 19
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Feb 91 08:23:49 +0000.
             <11477.667556523@ics.uci.edu>

One hypothesis is extremely plausible:

  - Some unfortunate header mapping is occuring that leads some X.400
	UAs to use the contents of the ReSent-From or ReSent-Sender
	components instead of the "From" component.

The concept of "ReSent-From" and "ReSent-Sender" does not exist in X.400;
however, it is quite near from the "AuthorizingUser" IPM header field, which
in turns gets mapped to something like "From" or "Sender" by some UAs. You
could perhaps avoid the problem by one of the following actions:

1) Do not place any "ReSent-From" or "ReSent-Sender" in the header. The info
is in the envelop, and that should be enough.

2) If you place a "Resent-From", then cook-up a "Reply-To" field from the
original "From/Sender" field -- and do it carefully, so as to avoid multiple
entries to same list...

Christian Huitema