Pete Resnick wrote:
On 1/15/08 at 10:18 AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
Note: The Sender (responsible agent) information is always present.
The absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the information
is redundant with the "From:" field, so it is not redundantly encoded
into a separate field. The absence of the "Sender:" field sometimes
confuses readers into believing that the Sender responsible agent
information has not been specified explicitly.
How about this (to better conform to the current language):
Note: The transmitter information is always present. The absence of the
"Sender:" field is sometimes mistakenly taken to mean that the agent
responsible for transmission of the message has not been specified
explicitly. The absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the
transmitter is identical to the author, so it is not redundantly placed
into a separate field.
Does that convey the correct information?
I think so, except use of the term "transmitter" does not have a direct copy
in the preceding paragraph. While the semantics are fine (is fine?) I think
that particularly pedantic writing is needed since this is all about
That's why my suggested paragraph tried to echo the "responsible agent"
phrasing from the preceding paragraph. Anything that makes it essentially
impossible to misconstrue the reference is fine with me.