At 03:13 AM 5/26/99 , Thomas Roessler wrote:
So, to the working group: Should standardized signature extensions
go into sub-packets of their own, or should one start to standardize
certain notation data names?
What about the rfc822 weasel:
extension-field =
<Any field which is defined in a document
published as a formal extension to this
specification; none will have names beginning
with the string "X-">
user-defined-field =
<Any field which has not been defined
in this specification or published as an
extension to this specification; names for
such fields must be unique and may be
pre-empted by published extensions>
I don't believe there's any clearing-house for user-defined-field names (is
there?).
Informix Software, Inc. Jack Repenning
Config/Release Mgmt jackr(_at_)informix(_dot_)com
4100 Bohannon Drive M/S: 4100/2
Menlo Park, CA 94025 FAX: 650/926-6571
VOICE: 650/926-1044 PAGE: 800/781-6182
PGP/RSA: D24B E2C2 9AFB 7C24 : 7E59 7885 525D 644E
PGP/DSS: 955C 44AD 8FCE 77D4 9494 \
: 4AB2 51F1 3EED 3B82 E870