[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl

2005-01-16 15:17:45

barf.  the last thing we need is for agents to start renaming headers.

I'm afraid we've had that for some time. For example, if I recall
correctly, Pine renames "resent-" header lines if you resend the message

which is a good example of why renaming header fields doesn't work very well. we don't need to rename received fields, why do we need to rename other fields?

(actually, resent doesn't work very well. but it's rarely a problem as long as it is only used for its intended purpose. unfortunately people keep trying to redefine the meaning of resent-* and other fields, most recently to accommodate various shortsighted anti-spam schemes)

Incidentally, one of these days we should perhaps bring the
specification's terminology in line with what everybody actually uses.
Pretty well everybody, when they write "header" mean a single header
line (as you seem to above). The RFC actually calls this a "header

yup. I do try to use "header field" like the RFC says, but sometimes I slip and abbreviate this to "header". fortunately, it's usually not a problem to distinguish between "header" as used to mean "header field", and "header" as used to mean "entire header" from context.

OTOH, "header line" seems ambiguous to me - I think you must mean something _besides_ header field because you're not using either "header field" or the common abbreviation "header". :)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>