Here is an attempt to summarize what might be a consensus of
this discussion:
- A mail header name registry is useful.
- The registry should not only contain headers from
standards, but it should clearly separate header
names from standards and non-standard header names.
- Some kind of community vetting of new entries should
be done.
- This community vetting need not be as thorough as
for a new standard, and it need not always result in
consensus. If no consensus is reached, the result may
be to store two alternative views in the registry.
- The community vetting could result in a warning against
the use of the proposed header, or it could result
in refusal to accept the new header name in the
registry.
- Each item in the registry should clarify the status of
that entry, whether it is from a standard, or otherwise
whether the community view is a warning or a specification
of a possible conflict orh problem with the new header
name.
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/