[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions

2005-01-10 09:06:39

On Thu December 2 2004 18:58, Steve Dorner wrote:
Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions
 Date: 2004-12-02 18:58
 From: Steve Dorner <sdorner(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
 To: Kai Henningsen <kaih(_at_)khms(_dot_)westfalen(_dot_)de>
 CC: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
At 8:27 PM +0200 12/2/04, Kai Henningsen wrote:
 > For that matter, how many permit a user to select multiple
 messages to compose a response citing all of the selected
 messages (including appropriate setting of In-Reply-To and
 References fields)?

Hopefully few, as there *is no* appropriate setting for those fields in 
that situation.

We actually hashed out a way that seemed right enough on this list a 
year or so ago.

There was a discussion in June 2003, however if it can be
said to have reached any conclusions, I believe those
conclusions include:
1. imposing new syntax on the References field is not
   backwards compatible
2. expecting UAs to coordinate updates to multiple fields
   is probably over-optimistic
3. several existing UAs botch References and In-Reply-To
   fields, destroying their utility
4. repeating message-ids may make a field "too long" (there
   is of course no limit to the length of a logical (continued)
   field, however a msg-id doesn't look like "1", it looks
   more like
   (that's a short example -- the domain name on the RHS can be
   up to 255 octets, and the local-part can also be lengthy)
   and one wouldn't want to have to repeat that)
5. rather than overload additional semantics on the References
   field, a new field or set of fields should be developed

So far, I haven't seen any detailed proposal to address the
issue in accordance with those conclusions (indeed, several
points are somewhat contradictory).