[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-07-30 01:18:19

Keith Moore wrote:

we're better off without a standard Expires header than with one 
that would have the effect (intended or otherwise) of having such 
messages be deleted without recipients' consent.

IBTD.  No documented standard with strange variations in syntax in
practice is worse than a clear standard with MUSTs and MUST NOTs.

Morons intentionally violating MUSTard are no compelling reason to
"undocument" Expires:.  And this header field exists in the Mixer
and Netnews RFCs, an attempt to "undocument" the idea is futile.

I think we are at the point where a fresh draft would be helpful.


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