Re: [ietf-smtp] Experimental (was: Re: homework, not an experiment, draf

Yes the received field is sufficient. These were thoughts from decades ago when 
people paid me to crawl headers.  That isn’t the case these days.  

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 5, 2021, at 21:00, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
>
> On 8/5/2021 5:56 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > Tim Wicinski writes:
> > > I'm with Dave on the idea of being Experimental.
> > >
> > >
> > > I know that Delivered-To has been around for a long time, but I always
> > > thought having the email address and the time stamp on Delivered-To would
> > > reading headers a bit easier for this person.
> > I don't recall ever seeing a timestamp in Delivered-To:, it was always just 
> > an address.
> > Received: headers have all the timestamps I ever need.
>
> You got there just ahead of me.  I had the same reaction.
>
> Not that timestamp info doesn't seen like an interesting feature, but it 
> hasn't been discussion and, so far, isn't in any of the existing examples 
> we've seen.
>
> Timestamps seem like such a strong benefit to make it worth considering how 
> to add this capability to the spec.  Yes?
>
> Or is the Received field sufficient?  Easy to believe it is.
>
> d/
>
>
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp