ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail

2002-06-14 09:12:25

In 
<20020613140544(_dot_)Q6679(_at_)melkebalanse(_dot_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no>
 Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> writes:

Well, what are the specific problems with the precedence? Often knowing
the problem better leads to finding a solution.

All I know about precedence is that it has bad karma. It smells of
unreliability. Nothing unusual for responders, that.

But if someone were to write it up as a standards track RFC that more or
less encompassed the present usages, there would be some chance that usage
would move in the direction of conforming to it, and other applications
might take it up. But it is already too widely used to ignore it and hope
it will go away. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

You might need to add to the list of keywords (junk, bulk, etc) and you
would certainly have to define what each is good for. Though I think most
of the usages in Keith's list would be legitimate.

We had a similar experience in Usefor with Mail-Copies-To. We would never
have given it that name if starting from scratch, and we might have made
the semantics a little different. But it was already widely deployed and
more or less consistently used. By including it in our standard, we hoped
to establish what seemed to be the current usage, at the same time
officially deprecating some usages that were already around but frowned on
in the real world.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>