[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15

2008-07-25 12:18:11

On Fri, 2008-07-25, Michael Welzl wrote:

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 11:40 -0700, Bill McQuillan wrote:

Scheduled: Invitation: 1 Aug 2008 17:00 -0400,
 Warning: 1 Sep 2008 17:00 -0400,
 Event: 8 Sep 2008 08:00 -0400,
 Expires: 12 Sep 2008 16:30 -0400

Too much, too complicated.

Quite possibly. One of my character flaws is to over-generalize solutions.
I'm working on that.   ;-)

Earlier in this thread, we discussed whether it would be
realistic to assume that users would be able to properly
use the "expired" feature. Now you propose much more,
with quite complex associated semantics; I can already
imagine the debates that we could be having in this
group about the exact meaning of expires vs. warning vs.
deadline vs. whatever.

I had actually thought of that and hoped that a set of agreed upon status
keywords would result. Perhaps I was too optimistic.

I'd really like this to become widespread and truly used,
and if there's any chance for that at all, I firmly believe
that the only way to achieve this is to make it REALLY
simple - easy to implement, and above all easy to
understand for the users.

The reason I proposed this was I am worried that it will be TOO easy for J.
Random Sender to determine how my message store will be managed. IMHO the
word "expires" carries so varied a meaning that I will have to struggle to
make any reasonable use of it.

What I am willing to grant J. R. Sender is the ability to declare one (or
more?) "status change" date-time(s) from *his* point of view. I'm hesitant
to use the word "expires" for that status change, both because of the
disconnect between the sender's opinion and the recipient's as well as the
danger of server or client developers implementing what they believe is its

Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>

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