Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: jsweet@ICS.UCI.EDU (Jerry Sweet)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: RFC-822 envelopes and X.400
Message-ID: <531.667569394@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 91 12:00:55 GMT
Lines: 20
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 26 Feb 91 11:04:54 +0100.
             <9102261004.AA12823@jerry.inria.fr>


Christian suggests:

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

Ah, but the envelope is NOT what should be used if it reflects the
re-sender, "mailmod".  Also, there is NO way in RFC 822 to avoid
ReSent-From or ReSent-Sender, although there may be tricky ways to
bypass the automatic additions of these components by the posting
agent -- something I'd prefer to avoid, but not completely unwilling
to try if necessary.

> 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...

Cooking up a Reply-To component sounds not unreasonable.  Anybody know
if Reply-To (or to whatever X.400 component it gets mapped) takes
precedence?