Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Let's try an example.
Mail-Followup-To has found favor with the community. It saves time for
users. There are several independent interoperable implementations.
Mail-Followup-To is widely implemented, which I find unfortunate, because
it makes the reply problem even worse than it already was.
What would you suggest instead to improve the situation?
The facilities for directing respones to messages in RFC 2822 is not
sufficient for some common uses, and MFT makes a shot at solving this
need. If there are problems with MFT, they aren't addressed because
there is no standardisation work going on.
Am I saying that Mail-Followup-To should be standardized without review?
No. I'm simply saying that the name should be reserved, so that there's
no risk of the Mail-Followup-To deployment bumping into something else.
I personally think Mail-Followup-To is a Bad Idea. But I also think
that this specific field is worth documenting in a registry - because
there are enough implementations that support it that people need to
know what it is, and so that nobody else will choose the same name for
a different purpose.
I wouldn't object to registering Mail-Followup-To *provided* the
registration process required community review.
Documenting current practice (which is in wide use) in a Informational
RFC would be a first step. The community can review it and either
suggest that it is moved onto the standards track, or if community
review of if specification proves that it is inadequate, the community
should propose a better solution that would go onto the standards
track. IMHO.