Your message dated Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:44:52 +0100 (CET)
with message-id <[email protected]>
has caused the Debian Bug report #202908,
regarding X-Debbugs-Cc: might work harder to prune headers
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) Pine Bugs <[email protected]>.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
pine behaviour regarding Resent-To
Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:44:52 +0100 CET
A lot of time ago (I apologize for taking so long to process this report),
Ross Boylan sent a bug against bugs.debian.org, but in the end, it happened
to be more a bug in the way pine handles Resent-* headers.
I'll try to summarize:
Colin Watson points out that RFC 2822 says:
Note: When replying to a resent message, replies behave just as they
would with any other message, using the original "From:",
"Reply-To:", "Message-ID:", and other fields. The resent fields are
only informational and MUST NOT be used in the normal processing of
However pine sometimes uses the address in the Resent-To field as well.
Example: If I reply to this message:
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Resent-To: [email protected]
Subject: Some subject
pine asks "Include original message in Reply?" and then "Reply to all
recipients?". If the answer to the second question is "yes", then pine
will compose a message like this:
To : [email protected]
Cc : [email protected],
which RFC 2822 says it must not happen.
So, to summarize: Adding [email protected] if one answer "yes" to the
question "Reply to all recipients?" seems to be fine, but adding
[email protected] is not.
Tested with pine 4.64.
--- End Message ---