It seems to me that it would be better to have the UA provide a
localized human-readable explanation of the error based on the enhanced
error codes, for two reasons:
1) This proposal, to be useful, requires that MTAs be able to generate
DSNs in a large number of languages. In practice, I suspect that you'd
find maybe 5 or 6 major languages being supported, with the result that
in many cases DSNs would still end up being generated in English.
2) The user agent, almost by definition, is going to be localized for
any particular user; it can use the enhanced error codes to generate an
appropriate message. Further the UA is in a position to tell the user
what, if anything, they can do about the problem using that particular
I also share Keith's concern about the layering issue: this
functionality should be an SMTP extension rather than an 822 header.
But unless I'm missing something, I don't think it should be either -
enhanced error codes should be all that's required.
From: John Gardiner Myers [SMTP:jgmyers(_at_)netscape(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 1997 12:09 PM
Subject: Accept-Language: proposal
I have a need to localize the human-readable text inside of DSN's and
other automated responses to 822-format messages. Here is a proposal
would like to float here, prior to issuing an internet-draft.
Does not necessarily work correctly if the message goes through list
expansion. The language preferences of the list maintainer can be
different than those of the original sender, so if the list expander
does not know to strip or replace the Accept-Language header, the list
maintainer could get DSN's in a language and charset they don't
So, what do people think?