On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:15 +0200, Michael Welzl wrote:
So we propose to standardize such a header. We would do this
by reviving the "Expiry" part of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15
(we've been in touch with the draft's author, Jacob Palme,
about this, and he likes the idea).
I like this. I'd retain this part as well:
"The word "client" may in this text designate functionality,
which some implementations actually implement wholly or partly
in a server. For example, in the case of IMAP and NNTP, it is
very common to implement functionality, which logically may be
regarded as belonging to a client, in the server."
No sense in sending a message if it is old in the first place. With
anti-spam systems delaying email for extended periods of time, this does
happen.
It is also unclear to me what the date-time field is suppose to look
like. It seems to be a RFC822 date updated to have 4 digit years. It
could also be:
22 Jul 2008 11:03 -0500
I'd rather have it be RFC3339 date format. But I have no idea how MS
deals with that.
--
:: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com