[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

2012-01-10 14:36:46

On 1/10/12 8:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

On 1/10/2012 10:21 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
OK. Putting this simplistically, we already have lots of Received: fields
being generated and we should have a clause value that covers this
probably-uninteresting set? I suggest "normal" or somesuch, not "none". The message, /is/ after all, making a transition. Whatever state or queue
it just entered, it does exist.

John suggested what's essentially a no-op state name to accommodate those implementations that, in supporting this, will always want to put some kind
of state clause down, and that seems a decent idea to me.

"normal" would be fine with me too.

Doing what sales folk call "selling past the sale" I'll note that there is no such thing as a no-op, since the presence of the Received: field means that some sort of 'op' took place. So the question is what the "nature" of the op is.

The "nature" of the op (or no-op) is 'received'. I.e. the message was received. A state of 'received' more or less duplicates the header name (Received), but if there needs to be a no-op state, then let's call it just 'received'.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>