Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text

Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 1/15/08 at 10:18 AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>>    Note: The Sender (responsible agent) information is always present. 
>> The absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the information 
>> is redundant with the "From:" field, so it is not redundantly encoded 
>> into a separate field. The absence of the "Sender:" field sometimes 
>> confuses readers into believing that the Sender responsible agent 
>> information has not been specified explicitly.
> 
> How about this (to better conform to the current language):
> 
> Note: The transmitter information is always present. The absence of the 
> "Sender:" field is sometimes mistakenly taken to mean that the agent 
> responsible for transmission of the message has not been specified 
> explicitly. The absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the 
> transmitter is identical to the author, so it is not redundantly placed 
> into a separate field.
> 
> Does that convey the correct information?

I think so, except use of the term "transmitter" does not have a direct copy 
in the preceding paragraph.  While the semantics are fine (is fine?) I think 
that particularly pedantic writing is needed since this is all about 
clarification.

That's why my suggested paragraph tried to echo the "responsible agent" 
phrasing from the preceding paragraph.  Anything that makes it essentially 
impossible to misconstrue the reference is fine with me.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net