In <104713470(_dot_)20080723101938(_at_)harvington(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> Chris
Haynes <chris(_at_)harvington(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> writes:
On Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 10:15:06 AM, 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).
Many of the responses so far have expressed concern about what UAs might or
might not do with this information. Debating these UA technical options are
secondary to two key questions:
1) Would the widespread introduction / use of this header by senders
cause any damage to / loss of messages in (unmodified) UAs as currently
deployed?
Only if they were gatewayed into Netnews, in which case obeying the
Expires header would be a desirable "feature".
2) Can the semantics of an 'expired' message be agreed and communicated
in a clean, simplistic, non-technical way?
Keith's definition is about right, and is fully consistent with the
Netnews definition.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5