I don't think it makes sense to use the accept-language field, as it's
currently defined, with email. partially this is because there's no clear
indication as to whose preferences are being described, and partially because
a reply to a message (the most likely use of accept-language) might go to the
author, the reply-to field, some subset of to and cc recipients, etc..
more generally, I don't think it makes sense to try to add descriptive
information about an address in a header field by using other fields
that don't explicitly reference that address. (note that these addresses
are sometimes changed in transit while leaving the other fields intact)
Keith
Following its definition in RFC 3282, should the Accept-language header
field be considered to be an email header field, in the sense of being a
recognized extension of RFC 2822. (If so, what does it mean in the context
of an RFC2822 mail message?)
--
Power corrupts; Powerpoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf