Re: rfc2822bis: "originator of the message" and "transmitter" not defined

On 1/16/08 at 12:28 AM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:

>  > 3.6.2.
>>  [...]
>>     The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
>>     message.  The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
>>     that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
>>     for the writing of the message.  The "Sender:" field specifies the
>>     mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
>>     message.  For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
>>     another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
>>     "Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
>>     the "From:" field.  If the originator of the message can be indicated
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>     by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>     "Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used.  Otherwise, both fields SHOULD
>>     appear.
>
>In this paragraph a term "originator of the message" is used for the 
>first and the only time, and is nowhere defined. Other text only 
>speaks of "originator fields" (= From, Sender, Reply-To).
>
>Also, the term "transmitter" is used here for the first time too, 
>and is never defined.

You are getting into territory where I feel like you're trying to 
overstate the obvious, and I can't figure out what problem you're 
trying to solve.

"The originator" of the message is the entity or entities specified 
in the originator fields.

"The transmitter" of the message is the entity responsible for 
transmitting the message.

It seems redundant to say those things.

The originator might be one entity (who is both the author and the 
transmitter and specified in the "From:" field), or the originator 
might be one or more authors (specified in the "From:" field) plus a 
separate transmitter (specified in the "Sender:" field).

Is there something in the above that you can not glean from 3.6.2? 
And what problem are we trying to solve by attempting to overtly 
define these terms in this very circular way?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102