In message <v03100d07aef9d579bc12@[205.214.160.54]>,
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> writes:
> At 1:25 PM -0800 1/8/97, Vicki Richman wrote:
> >That would be acceptable to me only if the original date is
> >preserved, perhaps as 'X-Original-Date: '.
>
> Good point, though I'd suggest "Posted-Date". (And the X- isn't
> required.)
>From RFC822:
Note: The prefatory string "X-" will never be used in the
names of Extension-fields. This provides user-defined
fields with a protected set of names.
Thus if you're not going to publish an RFC as an official extension to
RFC822 to define this procedure I'd recommend you use the "X-" convention.
I do disagree with the procedure in general. IMHO the users Date: header
should be left untouched and the Resent-Date: header used instead for
any additions by the MLM software.
Chris
--
Christopher Samuel, IT Vulnerabilities Group, chris@rivers.dra.hmg.gb
N-115, Defence Research Agency, St Andrews Road, Great Malvern, England, UK
DISCLAIMER: I write only for myself, not for DRA. Phone: +44 1684 894644
+MIME+ +PGP+
References:
|
|
