Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(January 1997)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field
From: Christopher Samuel <chris @ rivers . dra . hmg . gb>
Organization: IT Vulnerabilities Group, DRA Malvern, UK
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:45:49 +0000
To: list-managers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <v03100d07aef9d579bc12@[]>
References: <v03100d3daef981219928@[]> from "Dave Crocker" at Jan 8, 97 09:04:47 am <v03100d07aef9d579bc12@[]>

In message <v03100d07aef9d579bc12@[]>, 
	Dave Crocker <> 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.

 Christopher Samuel,    IT Vulnerabilities Group,
 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+

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: funky list processors
From: jonathon <>
Next: Re: funky list processors
From: Christopher Samuel <>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Changing the DATE field
From: Dave Crocker <>
Next: Re: Changing the DATE field
From: Vicki Richman <>

Search Internet Search