Tue, 01 May 2001 15:16:27 -0700
> > I disagree. The authoritative date is the Date header which says 1982.
> > That's what the sending mail program said, and I believe it. Just
> > because its human is an ass doesn't change that. The human needs to be
> > notified, sure.
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.
Jay, that was the point of my original post. Why are you worrying me like
a dog with rawhide on this one? I'm not something you have to topple,
I'm just stating my opinion.
> > I'd suggest that the only two meaningful dates are:
> > 1) Date: header
> > 2) date/time of arrival at the archiver
> > All else is sophistry.
> Hmmm... isn't that what we said?
I don't know. There was a hell of a lot of discussion about Received headers
and moderation delays, and I think it's wasted effort. I was mostly ignoring
that conversation, but I stopped to offer an
opinion-on-the-way-to-what-I'd-do-as-solution, since you seemed to be
haranguing me for one.
> And no, "time sent by the sender" is a meaningful date as well... *even
> if* it's not correctly represented by the header.
But there's no way to measure that with any accuracy at all except the
Date: header, which can be wrong, but shouldn't be. All else is sophistry.
> > Who said anything about a solution? I started this thread, I think, by
> > stating an opinion about the behavior I'd like.
> Funny... I thought Barry'd started it. I'll have to go back and look.
I started the thread titled Dates, today.
> But regardless, I concur with Barry and the other people who called it
> a problem, and I think a solution is in order. Barry's solution has an
> on-off switch. If you think that this is not a problem *to the people
> for whom you maintain an archive*, then shut that switch off.
Well, duh, Jay. Again, I don't know why you think I don't understand that,
or that I'm recommending any behavior for you or anyone else. I'm merely
offering an opinion. Stop being so threatened by that.