>1) If the archiving is done by the received field, the list maintainer >can have no way of inluencing the order according to which messages >are archived. Not good, especially if one has to send in older >messages to the archive.
I agree, it sucks. (I hate tradeoffs like this.) >2) Perhaps it should be left to the list maintainer to make sure the >Date fields are properly written (like every message could have the >Date filed rewritten when it is received by the list). Maybe. It seems like there are valid arguments for either way. (And certainly people complain with either choice!) >3) How about supporting an X-Archive-With-Date field? The archiving >could be done according to the rule <snip> Are there any standard headers for this? Is there an "archive-date" header in some RFC? >If the archiving rule stays as it is now (received/date), it is >impossible to send in older messages to the archive. Do you want me to manually set your particular archive(s) for Date: sorting? Jeff
