regarding the reply address on the list...

From: Eric Smith <eric_at_brouhaha.com>
Date: Thu Feb 3 12:30:57 2000

Marvin <marvin_at_rain.org> writes:
> I tolerate, but do not even slightly like, the fact that the dates that come
> in are dependent on the senders time/date stamp. Putting a realistic time
> stamp on a message is certainly not forging anything. Currently, messages
> come in all over the place (with regard to time/date order). Is this good? I
> think not!

It's the principle of least munging of headers again; it's considered bad
form to modify the Date: header supplied by the sender. If possible, set
your software to display and sort on the timestamp in the received header as
seen here (from your posting):


Received: (from majordom_at_localhost)
        by opal.tseinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA30204
        for classiccmp-classiccmp-org-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:23:20 -0600 (CST)
        (envelope-from owner-classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org)


It's a bit tricky since there's more than one Received: header, but if
you use the one that says "for classiccmp-classiccmp-org-outgoing", that's
the most likely to get you accurate ordering (since everyone else's clocks
don't necessarily match) and a consistent time zone.
Received on Thu Feb 03 2000 - 12:30:57 GMT