> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very >> clear here to be sure]. > > You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock > setting in Nichdel's computer, quite likely not on the side you intended. > > Mail headers: > > Nichdel's resolution: > Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (209.85.223.175) > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 26 Sep 2017 19:45:49 -0000 > Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:49:53 -0500 > > Your attempted resolution: > Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu (140.142.234.175) > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 3 Oct 2017 19:48:07 -0000 > Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:45:18 -0700 (PDT) > > As you can see, dependently on whether you count Date: headers or the time > when the list server received it, your message was either very shortly before > 7 days later, or very shortly after. And given the orderings, nichdel's > Date: header is probably in error, so it should be after. > > I'm not sure which time Agora counts messages by these days, mind you. I > vaguely recall reading that the old "technical domain of control" precedent I > set had been changed to something else, but not what.
Oh, hell. The “technical domain” precedent has never, to my knowledge, been overturned. The tooling I’m working on right now treats the Date: header as authoritative by default, on the presumption that (a) we can amend a recorded message that’s got the wrong date, and (b) people won’t lie in their headers very often, but this is how that assumption can fail. I also use Date: when figuring out event times for reports. Parsing Received: headers would be more reliable - it’s harder to lie that way, at least - but also considerably harder because they’re more or less free-format, whereas Date: can be counted on to contain an RFC 822-ish timestamp, and nothing else, most of the time. (I’ve made provisions for that assumption not to hold, too. I’ve seen the kinds of garbage that show up in email.) I don’t have a point, here, beyond “you’ve just pointed out that my life is harder than I thought it was.” -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
