ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote on 05.10.01 in
<01K94UYTWE6M000GV2(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>:
"This use of this is not standardized.
There is no formal specification for using this.
People use this in different ways."
This is basically what Jacob Palme's list of headers has already done. And
FWIW, I've noticed neither an increase nor a decrease in usage of such
fields as a result of its publication. Of course it is hard to extrapolate
from this to the effect a registry would have.
Do an explicit negative (BCP, probably) RFC instead, maybe titled
"Problematic Headers" or somesuch. (Though it might be better to do this
per-protocol - what's bad for one might be good for another.)
List bad headers, and explain why they're bad.
I expect at least some people would react differently to that than to the
Palme RFC. How many, I have no clue, of course; but *if* you can get that
at BCP level (and it certainly sounds like BCP material), that has more
force than just any odd informational RFC.
MfG Kai