ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text

2008-01-15 20:34:51

(30 seconds after hitting send, of course...)

damn.  I misread the rfc2822 paragraph.

ignore my expressed concern about 'transmitter' since indeed it does appear in the existing rfc2822 paragraph.

So, yeah, your text is fine.

grrr.

d/

Dave Crocker wrote:


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 clarification.

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.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net