On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 2:49 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > CFJ 831 (called 10 Nov 1995): 'The Date: header of a message is not > > necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.' > > Why is this now inaccurate? We've held that not all Date headers are to > be trusted, right?
In retrospect I think you're right - I thought we'd overridden that judgement with the current rules language: > Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time > date-stamped on that message. but looking closer, that judgement still fits our interpretation that other datestamps in the headers other than the "Date:" can be used as the "date-stamp" if there's a discrepancy between them (annotation should be kept). -G.
