Re: #1416
Harald Alvestrand <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.usenet.format |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>
> - <t>The injecting agent MUST then add an Injection-Date header
> - field containing the current date and time.</t>
> + <t>If the proto-article already had an Injection-Date header
> + field, it MUST NOT be modified or replaced. If the
> + proto-article had both a Message-ID header field and a Date
> + header field, an Injection-Date header field MUST NOT be
> + added, since the proto-article may have been multiply injected
> + by a posting agent that predates this standard. Otherwise,
> + the injecting agent MUST add an Injection-Date header field
> + containing the current date and time.</t>
This ("if the prot-article had both a Message-ID header field and a Date
header field") is the place that bothers me most, since it will mean
that singly injected articles produced by "modern" UAs that generate
their own message-IDs will never get an Injection-Date header field.
It seems to sacrifice a general goal (that messages should have
Injection-Date) for a narrow benefit (that multiple copies of multiply
injected articles that are injected over a large span of time won't be
detected as duplicates by servers that check Injection-Date and ignore
Date).
I'm not sure that's the right tradeoff.
Harald