Hi Ollie,
I'm afraid the dictionary attack :-) is not going to be definitive at all.
An onset can be an event in the past. The concept of onset/beginning is rather integral to the root of the word (seize, give
admittance). Using the root receive in the context of onset, there's only one *definitive* way to explain that such occurred in the
past: received.
The interpretation you're offering (based on common suffix application) can only *definitively* be attached to completion of
reception ... with the consequence that the header most closely aligned would be 'Reception-Completed-At:' of which there is none.
In the middle there's gray. At least as far as it concerns dictionaries or common word transforms. Especially for a word that itself
is ambivalent on the distinction of onset, transition, and completion times of concepts, actions, and objects.
Relating those definitions to SMTP one might take many definitions. But when one limits oneself to SMTP, without the involvement of
extra-layer services, the reality of the reception is certain once DATA begins. That is, the uncertainty of reception of an offered,
valid complete message (within SMTP's realm) is completely expired at that point.
It is as if I were to quibble with an officer as to whether I'd received stolen goods whist transfering a carpet from a thief's
lorrie to mine. I am certain to get nicked once it touches my bumper, but I might win the case.
In any case I rest my appeal for the status quo not exclusively on the word but also on the primary purpose for which this header is
said to exist (gatewaying, in which any delay between beginning in and ending out can have many a cause, not just the duration of
DATA transition). In this context, which includes automated tools for monitoring and debugging, the onset time is the most crucial
to tie in.
A further aspect is that the use case on which the proposal rests is not technically a part of SMTP. Perhaps there's a better use
case?
Best,
--Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: exim-users-admin@??? [
mailto:exim-users-admin@exim.org] On Behalf Of Ollie Cook
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 07:53 AM
To: Nick Ragouzis
Cc: exim-users@???
Subject: Re: [Exim] Request for comment: changing Received header timestamps
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:51:55AM -0800, Nick Ragouzis wrote:
> > reflect start or ended
> Right. Reflect start.
The header is 'Received:'. The suffix -ed suggests an event in the past (i.e. an event has ended). It would make sense to me,
language-wise, for any dates in such a header to reflect when the action was completed.
It's not a 'Reception-Started-At:' header, after all.
Ollie
--
Oliver Cook Systems Administrator, Claranet UK
ollie@??? +44 20 7903 3065
--
## List details at
http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at
http://www.exim.org/ ##
