[Mailman-Developers] Re: Dates

Barry A. Warsaw barry@digicool.com
Wed, 2 May 2001 00:22:59 -0400

>>>>> "JRA" == Jay R Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> writes:

    >> The current approach has one hole, which would be easy to fix
    >> if it's useful.  Mailman could mark the message with an
    >> `authoritatively received date' using some X-* header leaving
    >> the original Date: header alone.  Then the archiver could use
    >> that date to slot the message regardless of what the Date:
    >> header said.  I'm not sure this is worth it though because 1)
    >> there's no standard that I'm aware of that would let archivers
    >> and list managers/MTAs cooperate;

    JRA> Rough Concensus; Working Code.  (ie: *create* such a header)

Suggestion:  X-List-Received-Date ?  But, is it even worth it?

    >> 2) the date Mailman would stamp the message wouldn't be
    >> /that/ far off of the date the archiver got handed the message
    >> anyway, so the archiver can always do whatever it wants with
    >> dates and it'll be close enough; 3) the most recent Received:
    >> header is probably close enough so that it could be used as the
    >> `authoritatively received date' as has been suggested.

    JRA> Assuming you can reliably decide which one to use.  Can you?

Nope, which is why I rejected this suggestion for Mailman.