Message138593
| Author |
r.david.murray |
| Recipients |
Nicolas.Estibals, jcea, r.david.murray |
| Date |
2011年06月18日.19:57:58 |
| SpamBayes Score |
6.7861106e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1308427080.04.0.318923681623.issue12147@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I think we can treat this as a bug. However...
What if there is more than one set of Resent- headers? I think that it is not possible to guarantee we only look at the most recent set, since the RFC provides no way to identify a "set". Heuristically we could probably guess right 99% of the time, but we'd still be guessing. Further, the RFC actually prohibits using the Resent- headers for "automated processing", though, granted, it is talking about the receiving end, not the sending end.
My inclination at this point is to fix the Sender bug, and to refuse to guess when there are any Resent- headers (throw a ValueError). I've queried the email-sig to see what they think. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年06月18日 19:58:00 | r.david.murray | set | recipients:
+ r.david.murray, jcea, Nicolas.Estibals |
| 2011年06月18日 19:58:00 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1308427080.04.0.318923681623.issue12147@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年06月18日 19:57:59 | r.david.murray | link | issue12147 messages |
| 2011年06月18日 19:57:58 | r.david.murray | create |
|