[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt
> -----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
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
Hmm, maybe. Anyone else have an opinion on the name?