--On Thursday, 06 November, 2008 15:19 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 11/6/08 at 12:35 PM -0800, ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
I think right is : "Time-stamp-line" - no confusing
"Received", because time stamp defines received.
I don't support this change. While "time-stamp-line" may be
more technically correct, even experienced email
implementors won't recognize the term and will have to
search for it. Received", OTOH, is a much better known and
better understood term.
I agree with Ned about the above suggestion. But 4.4 is easily
clarified to make it so that folks like Ivar don't get
confused:
... it MUST insert trace (often referred to as "time stamp" or
"Received") information at the beginning of the message...
I have tentatively made this change in the working draft of
rfc5321bis. However, please note that this text is redundant
with a paragraph earlier in the document that starts.
# When the SMTP server accepts a message either for relaying
# or for final delivery, it inserts a trace record (also
# referred to interchangeably as a "time stamp line" or
# "Received" line) at the top...
The somewhat abbreviated form of the second parenthetical note
about the alternate terminology may have been induced by the
earlier, longer, form.
If I get motivated, or someone makes a specific suggestion that
seems usable, I will try to eliminate that redundancy.
-- your friendly editor