>>>>> "JRA" == Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The current approach has one hole, which would be easy to fix
>> if it's useful. Mailman could mark the message with an
>> `authoritatively received date' using some X-* header leaving
>> the original Date: header alone. Then the archiver could use
>> that date to slot the message regardless of what the Date:
>> header said. I'm not sure this is worth it though because 1)
>> there's no standard that I'm aware of that would let archivers
>> and list managers/MTAs cooperate;
JRA> Rough Concensus; Working Code. (ie: *create* such a header)
Suggestion: X-List-Received-Date ? But, is it even worth it?
>> 2) the date Mailman would stamp the message wouldn't be
>> /that/ far off of the date the archiver got handed the message
>> anyway, so the archiver can always do whatever it wants with
>> dates and it'll be close enough; 3) the most recent Received:
>> header is probably close enough so that it could be used as the
>> `authoritatively received date' as has been suggested.
JRA> Assuming you can reliably decide which one to use. Can you?
Nope, which is why I rejected this suggestion for Mailman.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
