Trying to return to a more polite tone: notice this email has a Versions:
header, used by a set of mail tools I've been using on the Internet since
1990.
Interesting. It seems to be in direct competition with X-Mailer and
User-Agent. All these are all loose in the "wild", though User-Agent has
the advantage that is is already standarised for HTTP, and hopefully soon
will be for Netnews.
And we are going to have the same problem with the various X-Priority and
Precedence headers.
Where there are conflicts between current usage, or between current and
standard usages, I think we will need to sort these out via traditional
means of RFC publication. I think it will be difficult to sort these
things out with a review/registration process like we've been describing.
I also think it will be difficult for a "registry" (that is, any list
of header fields) to explain how such a conflict is sorted out; particularly
if each of the different field names has a different syntax. At most it
can say "discouraged/deprecated in favor of XXXX; see RFC YYYY".
Keith