On Nov 30, 2004, at 8:42 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
A (possibly) interesting side-note to the issue of company-confidential
indications that Nat brought up: both VPIM and MIXER use a
Sensitivity message header field, however, while MIXER provides
for a "Company-Confidential" value for the field body, VPIM
does not. Otherwise, the syntax and values appear identical.
So a message with
Sensitivity: Company-Confidential
might be a legal MIXER message or a VPIM message with illegal
content; and it's not easy to determine which...
sounds like an opportunity for an addition to one or two of the RFC
Editor's errata pages:
1. for VPIM - point out (a) that MIXER also uses the Sensitivity field
(b) that it's possible to receive a message from a MIXER gateway that
has such a field with the value of Company-Confidential and (c) VPIM
implementations should not break when they see such a field.
2. for MIXER - point out that VPIM also uses the Sensitivity field, and
(if the VPIM uses are at odds with those in MIXER) point out that MIXER
gateways should do something reasonable if they see Sensitivity fields
with values they don't understand.
Keith
p.s. Grumble...when you set reply-to to point to the list rather than
you, I have to remember to leave the
"On <date>, at <time>, Bruce Lilly wrote:" in the message body. I'm
so accustomed to removing it that I do it without thinking. I hate
reading that cruft when it's redundant with the information in the
message header, but without having you explicitly listed in the To
field of the reply, there's a need for it.
Maybe this is another case where the recipient's UA should be supplying
context based on References or In-Reply-To instead of having the reply
author's MUA include it in the message?