Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text

On Tuesday 15 January 2008 22:33:44 Pete Resnick wrote:
> 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?

Well, yes, except for the wording in:

> ... to mean that the agent responsible for transmission of the
> message has not been specified explicitly.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After all, it *is* true that this information has not been
specified *explicitly*, it has been specified implicitly.

  Mark