From: Peter C.McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 12:20:25 CDT
kent@hypermail.org (kent landfield) writes:
>There was some initial discussion about this along time ago though I don't
>see it in the archives... If I remember right, the concerns were based on
>
> * trust of the Date: header generated on a foreign site, allowing
> an external person from messing up your archives by putting in
> bogus date information,
>
> * Use of received headers not always consistent between sites,
> certain received headers can be disabled locally for concealment
> of local information, multiple received headers due to hops,
> listmanager usage, etc..
>
> * Use of received headers not always consistent MTAs
> (postfix, sendmail, etc.).
>
>My biggy was the first one as someone did just that to an archive I managed
>more than once. To eliminate all of the above, the local time on the system
>was used. If the man page is wrong, let's change it. Note however, it does
>not say the date in the Received header is used. But point taken, the wording
>can be confusing.
The first reason is a good argument against using the Date: header, but
it doesn't sound like a good argument against using the fromdate field of
struct emailinfo.
The other reasons only seem important if a significant number of sites
produce "From " lines that hypermail thinks it can parse but parses
incorrectly. But if that weren't rare, I think we would have heard more
complaints about other parts of hypermail producing strange dates.
I'm still inclined to change the code to use the fromdate unless I hear
a good reason not to.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McCluskey | "To announce that there must be no criticism of
http://www.rahul.net/pcm | the President, or that we are to stand by the
| President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
| and servile, but morally treasonable to the
| American public." - Theodore Roosevelt