Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text

(30 seconds after hitting send, of course...)

damn.  I misread the rfc2822 paragraph.

ignore my expressed concern about 'transmitter' since indeed it does appear in 
the existing rfc2822 paragraph.

So, yeah, your text is fine.

grrr.

d/

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> 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