>A clean, simple, fast way to register the non X- header field would do the
>trick..
>
Is that possible? Ignoring "fast" for the moment, my definition of
"clean" is that the registration requires specification of semantics and
syntax, including ABNF.
That may conflict with somebody else's definition of "simple".
Well, I'd expect a specification of semantics, syntax and an ABNF
definition. That doesn't stop it being relatively simple (with guidance notes).
What would make it slow is an extensive 'approval' system as there is now.
What I'd quite like is a way of registering a header field (including basic
semantics, syntax and an ABNF definition (for many existing X- fields this
could be trivial with some examples to work from)). This would go to a
group of 'learned volunteers' who make sure it's not abusive (ie not
'grabbing' a useful header field name for an inappropriate purpose, or not
commercially advantagous to someone to the detriment of others etc) and
that's it, registered. The 'learned volunteers' may also give feedback to
the registrant saying something like 'we think this is a really good idea,
but needs developing in such and such a way', and then they reserve the
header field name, to give the full registration time to be improved.
An automated register might then allow people to register 'interest' in a
registered header field if they are MTA/MUA developers (eg 'we implement
this', 'we plan to implement it', 'we hate it and think the author ought to
be shot', etc) so that other potential users of the field would know
whether it's worth bothering about.
JM2P
(I'm sure we've been through all this a year or two ago..)
Paul VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway
support(_at_)pscs(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk http://www.pscs.co.uk/