(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.
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.