Re: Forwarding attachments

[Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>]

On Tue, 11 September 15:30 M . Thielker wrote:
> On 2001.09.11 14:16 Olaf Frączyk wrote:
> > So I will be unable to remove some attachments (eg. the message has 3
> > attachments, but I would like to forward only 2 of them)?
> > And, will it be possible to make some changes in "text" part of forwarded
> > message (eg. somebody sent me some mail, I add corrections to this, and
> > send to another person)?
> 
> As it's currently being discussed, no. I don't like it, don't like it at
> all. I think I should not be forced to forward a message as is, I should
> only have the _option_ to do so.

Wasn't this always the case as discussed?  When was it ever said that the
forwarding method should be forced on the user?  Even Netscape allows the
selection of alternative forwarding methods.

Recap: three ways to forward a message have been mentioned to date
	1) RFC 2822 resend.  Original message is sent to new recipients.
	   Message is not altered, has same message-id and to/cc/bcc headers
	   New recipient list is added to resent-to/cc/bcc headers and resender
	   is in resent-from header.  Effect is the mostly same as if message
	   had been originally delivered to the resent recipients.

	2) Attach original message as message/rfc822.  This allows some
commentary
           to be added by the forwarder but also guarantees the new recipients
	   a verbatim copy of the message.  The composite message is a new
message
	   with a new message-id.

	3) Cut and paste bits of the original into a new message.  This is
	   all that balsa does now.

As far as I was aware the patches to date are purely experimental, maybe I'm
wrong.  It seems to me that if you don't like methods 1 or 2, just don't use
them.  But that shouldn't deny those forwarding methods to others.

Brian