RE: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Finch [mailto:fanf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tony Finch
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:55 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: SMTP Discussion
> Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt
> 
> I agree with Bill McQuillan's remarks. If the server knows at the time
> it receives the message that there is going to be a delay then it can
> include the new clause in its usual Received: header. Otherwise it'll
> have to add a new header. Would it be OK to edit the previously-added
> header?

I think RFC5321 says clearly that you're not supposed to do that ever.  Adding another one is more appropriate.

> The examples all have syntax errors. Received: sub-fields have a
> prescribed order.

Ah right.  Will fix those.

> I think held-for would be a better (more descriptive) keyword than
> state.

Hmm, maybe.  Anyone else have an opinion on the name?

-MSK