--On Thursday, 06 November, 2008 15:19 -0600 Pete Resnick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/6/08 at 12:35 PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> I think right is : "Time-stamp-line" - no confusing
>>> "Received", because time stamp defines received.
>>
>> I don't support this change. While "time-stamp-line" may be
>> more technically correct, even experienced email
>> implementors won't recognize the term and will have to
>> search for it. Received", OTOH, is a much better known and
>> better understood term.
>
> I agree with Ned about the above suggestion. But 4.4 is easily
> clarified to make it so that folks like Ivar don't get
> confused:
>
> ... it MUST insert trace (often referred to as "time stamp" or
> "Received") information at the beginning of the message...
I have tentatively made this change in the working draft of
rfc5321bis. However, please note that this text is redundant
with a paragraph earlier in the document that starts.
# When the SMTP server accepts a message either for relaying
# or for final delivery, it inserts a trace record (also
# referred to interchangeably as a "time stamp line" or
# "Received" line) at the top...
The somewhat abbreviated form of the second parenthetical note
about the alternate terminology may have been induced by the
earlier, longer, form.
If I get motivated, or someone makes a specific suggestion that
seems usable, I will try to eliminate that redundancy.
-- your friendly editor
