[Top] [All Lists]

Re: X-* header fields

2004-01-23 04:30:34

At 17:46 22/01/2004, Keith Moore wrote:
Misuse of any protocol feature can cause interoperability problems.
That is at least as true for X- fields (which IMHO should never have
been put in shipping products except perhaps as write-only fields) as
for non X- fields (which should never be in shipping products without
public vetting).


I'm one of the people who's moderately happy with X- fields when used properly (as opposed to using a non-standard non-X- field)

But, I could very easily be convinced that X- fields should be write-only in shipping products. But, I'd prefer to see that than people using non-standard non-X- fields, or not being able to add any field without public vetting.

Having a computer readable X- field is 'dangerous' IMHO - for the same reason that using a non-standard non-X- field would be - interoperability. Having write-only X- fields doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of risk.

So, I'd be happy to see a 'X- fields SHOULD be write-only' type clause in the standard.

Paul                            VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway

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