On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ais523 wrote: >>Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp, > > I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning > of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a > manner that would be expected to normally give an accurate record of > the current date.
Indeed, dictionary.com lists exactly one definition for "date-stamp": "to stamp the date on, as with a date stamp". Not "to stamp *a* date on". Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date and so cannot be date-stamped. So I could presumably alter a message's headers to claim that it was sent at midnight this morning, and it would still be considered date-stamped. -root
