At 03/12/29 09:10, Miguel wrote: Hello Adam, Miguel, and All,
I have been following this thread with interest. This is a debate that comes up from time to time in various places. Scenario: Adam sends messages. Later, Adam learns that intended recipient did not receive message, or for whatever other reason, sends message again. Later still, Adam wishes to locate second copy of sent message based on sent date, but The Bat! is not able to do this. Here's why: MAU>,----- [ From RFC 2822 - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html ] [<snip RFC quote>] MAU>I specially like this paragraph: MAU> MAU>> In any case, it is specifically not intended to convey the time that MAU>> the message is actually transported, but rather the time at which the MAU>> human or other creator of the message has put the message into its MAU>> final form, ready for transport. So, here we see that The Bat! is handling the Date: header of the sent (and resent) message(s) correctly. MAU>It is also true that same RFC 2822 says: MAU> MAU>> 3.6.6. Resent fields MAU>> MAU>> Resent fields SHOULD be added to any message that is reintroduced by a MAU>> user into the transport system. Correct. But also note, RFC 2822, 3.6 Field definitions says: >resent-date 0* unlimited* One per block, required if other resent > fields present - see 3.6.6 And further along, in 3.6.6, we read: >When resent fields are used, the "Resent-From:" and "Resent-Date:" fields >MUST be sent. So, per RFC 2822, anytime that resent fields are used, Resent-Date: MUST be included. But, MUST resent fields be used, or are they optional? MAU>But it says SHOULD, not MUST. Correct. And for its definition of SHOULD, RFC 2822 points to RFC 2119, which defines SHOULD: >3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may >exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, >but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before >choosing a different course. So, unless there is a _very good_ reason to do otherwise, items marked SHOULD really _should not_ be considered optional :-). A careful reading of RFC 2822 will show other instances where SHOULD is used, but where the subject is really not optional at all. MAU>And only Resent-From is included by TB when a message is re-sent. And here is the crux of the matter. If Resent-From: is included, then Resent-Date: MUST also be included. I can come to no other conclusion than that The Bat! is not, in this instance, RFC compliant. Someone else (Thomas?) pointed out that the actual date/time of transmission appears in the Received: header field. However, the Received: header field, while available to the recipient, is _not_ available to the sender, and so can form no part of a paper-trail for the sender. -- Just Another Joe ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
