In <411CDF3E(_dot_)7000507(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> "Eric A. Hall"
<ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> writes:
A definitive authoritative specification for all variations of the mbox
database format is explicitly not the objective, for several reasons. For
one thing, such a definition is outside the IETF's purview, the same as a
definition for Outlook or Eudora or other vendor/platform-centric database
formats would be.
For standards-track, yes. But if this document (or some other) were to
describe the mbox format in full, with variations listed, then it would be
Informational. That is still not a reason not to include the format and
the tag in the same document. And if the tag is to have some optional
parameters to assist the recipient, then the format and the parameters
need to be considered at the same time when designing the document(s).
Note that the purposes of the parameters is primarily
1. To ensure that the mbox is split into individual messages correctly
2. To minimize the need for ">From " stuffing which is an irreversible
kludge.
The parameters are, or course, optional, but if they are omitted the
recipient has to resort to guesswork (i.e. clues derived from examination
of the acutal content).
--
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_)clerew(_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