On Thu October 21 2004 22:34, Laird Breyer wrote:
In another post, I mentioned possibly extending the RFC 2822 date-time stamp
to include microseconds.
Two problems:
1. date-time is pervasive; it is used in many places in addition to
time stamp lines
2. while providing seconds was once mandatory (RFC 821), it is
now optional (RFCs 2821/2822). So you might not even have
seconds. You seem to want to buck the trend.
2. Quoting the "with" ID may provide protection, depending on whether
the ID is guessable.
Yes. From the RFC, this is optional. Do you know any good reasons why the ID
might not be added to a Received line sometimes?
Umm, because it is optional. Past implementations have associated
the identifier with a set of files used in store-and-forward
processing. In some cases, messages might be handled w/o
any associated file storage, therefore no need for an id.
There also appears to be some confusion between "with"
(which specifies a protocol (SMTP, ESMTP, LMTP, etc.) and
"id" which provides an identifier of some sort (RFCs
821/822/2821/2822 all differ on what is allowed).