[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: #1416 Injection-Date: current wording proposal (corrected)




@@ -704,8 +814,14 @@
             the source of the article and possibly other trace information
             as described in Section 3.2.8 of <xref target="USEFOR" />.</t>
- <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>
<t>Finally, the injecting agent forwards the article to one or 
             more relaying agents, and the injection process is
I (still) am not convinced of the need for not adding an Injection-Date: header when a message-ID and Date is present, but Injection-Date is not. 

There are 3 cases:

- Message is singly injected. Injection-Date: does no harm.
- Message is multiply injected, Injection-Date: on all copies are quite close to each other, because they all got injected in rapid succession. Injection-Date: does no harm. - Message is multiply injected, and some of the injections got significantly delayed.
I think most user agents will add Date: and Message-ID: by default. (Anyone have data on this, rather than supposition?)
So the net result of catering for the minority third case is that *most* messages on the Net will be sent without an Injection-Date. 

If so, what's the point of claiming that we're "mandating" it?


                       Harald