-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Finch [mailto:fanf2(_at_)hermes(_dot_)cam(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk] On
Behalf Of Tony Finch
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:55 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: SMTP Discussion
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt
I agree with Bill McQuillan's remarks. If the server knows at the time
it receives the message that there is going to be a delay then it can
include the new clause in its usual Received: header. Otherwise it'll
have to add a new header. Would it be OK to edit the previously-added
header?
I think RFC5321 says clearly that you're not supposed to do that ever. Adding
another one is more appropriate.
The examples all have syntax errors. Received: sub-fields have a
prescribed order.
Ah right. Will fix those.
I think held-for would be a better (more descriptive) keyword than
state.
Hmm, maybe. Anyone else have an opinion on the name?
-MSK