On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > [Would require an unambiguous specification of identity so that "I am > a current player" sent anonymously wouldn't work. Also generalizes to > when message was sent instead of specifying the date stamp, which > follows current precedent (the "Date:" header is usually accepted as > the time an action occurred unless it's clearly lying, in which case > an appropriate Received: header is used; I believe this wording more > accurately reflects our practice, which arguably violates the letter > of the rule if we don't currently allow forged Date: headers to > control timing. At best, "time date-stamped" is ambiguous since every > message has multiple times stamped on it by various machines.)] Would the X-Date-Stamp header count? (I put the wrong year on, but I may as well test the rule before you fix it. Wishing Agora a happy birthday the instant it was created seems like an appropriate test, anyway.) -- ais523
