On 10/03/2010, at 12:19 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: [...] > Before I go on with the actual change for issue 29, I'd like to collect some feedback on the rearranged text, defining the data for the age calculation. I think so. > Also - Mark - is...: > > "See Section 9.3.1 of [Part1] for requirements regarding responses without a Date response header." > > this the reference you had in mind for absent Date headers? No; it's just section 9.3; in particular this text: > A received message that does not have a Date header field MUST be > assigned one by the recipient if the message will be cached by that > recipient or gatewayed via a protocol which requires a Date. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:20:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:21 UTC