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.
+1. I spend way too much time on such messes already; anything we can do to
eliminate them is a good idea IMO.
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.
And more to the point, there appears to a move towards using it now, for
whatever reason. Sometimes when you brush these ideas off they go away, but
other times they move into wide use without agreed upon semantics.
I think we are at the point where a fresh draft would be helpful.
Agreed. I think we're pretty close to something viable here.
Ned