On 11/20/2004 13:26, "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:22 AM -0500 Steven Kuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> As I said, I can guarantee messages from the future are wrong. Disagree? >> >> Perhaps messages from more than a day (or N days) in the past could be >> bounced saying: >> "Either your system clock is wrong or your message was unreasonably >> delayed. Either fix your clock, or make sure your message is still >> current and send it again." >> Alternately, the message could be held for approval or date fixing, and >> you could set that user as "Date Impaired" so that all messages from that >> individual get fixed - if they're off. > > This seems a reasonable approach, given a configurable delivery delay > tolerance. One could also cross-check References headers against messages > already received, to set a lower limit on the time stamp. If a message > claims to have been sent prior to one it references (modulo some > tolerance), then it can be bounced/modified/moderated. Keep in mind that there are MUAs which set the Date: as the message is begun, not when it is sent. If the sender leaves it as a draft for a couple of days before sending, the Date: will be "two days old". (What one wants to do with that date is another matter.) --John _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org
