Oops, forgot the list copies...
--- Begin Message ---
ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
[quoting Jacob Palme]
like for examples is already accepted that the initital MTA
may add a "Date" header for a message lacking such a
header.
Actually, it isn't accepted for an MTA to do this. It can be done by an MSA,
which is a different beast.
Note that RFC 2822 defines the semantics for the Date field as
representing the time of completion of composition of the message,
not the time of entry into the transport stream. Of course RFC 2476
predates RFC 2822, and RFC 822 and earlier were not as precise
regarding the Date field semantics. The next revision of RFC 2476
as it progresses along the Standards Track should probably address
that discrepancy.
--- End Message ---