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 ---Hello. 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 replies. 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 Some body. ============================= 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], [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. Thanks.
--- End Message ---
