[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More on mail message header fields

2004-05-07 06:24:26

At 12:19 30/04/04 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
IMHO The Encrypted field never was adequately specified. If 2026 criteria had been in effect when rfc 822 was published, 822 would have had to been revised to remove Encrypted in order to move it to Draft.

so yes it's obsolete, but not because it was omitted from 2822. do you have a status "fatally flawed"?

(In case that wasn't entirely in jest:) No. But I'll extend the annotation to make the point about inadequate specification.


On Apr 30, 2004, at 10:08 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:

In response to an off-list comment, I'm making a small revision of the mail message header registry draft [1] to mark header fields defined in RFC822 (as well as RFC2822) as standard rather than just "standards-track". This raised two questions:

1. Are there any other mail header fields that have achieved full standard status?

2. RFC2822 dropped the "Encrypted" header field which was defined in RFC822. I take that to mean it is regarded as obsolete; would this be correct? My current proposed entry for this is:
    a hdr:HeaderField ;
    hdr:fieldName "Encrypted" ;
    hdr:label "Message encryption information" ;
    hdr:protocol hdr:Protocol_mail ;
    hdr:status "obsolete" ;
    hdr:author hdr:Author_IETF ;
    hdr:controller hdr:Author_IETF ;
    hdr:specification hdr:RFC822 ;
        """Defined by RFC 822, but removed in RFC 2822.
           Current practice is to use separate encryption, such
           as S/MIME or OpenPGP, possibly in conjunction with
           RFC 1847 MIME security multiparts.
        """ .



Graham Klyne
For email:

Graham Klyne
For email: