On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:54:09 -0000, "D. J. Bernstein"
<djb(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to> said:
Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu writes:
If we're trying to provide advisory eliminate-dups, then a better thing to
do
might be to dust off Bernstein's Mail-Followup-To: proposal from http://
cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
``Dust off''? A Google search for Mail-Followup-To returns nearly half a
million hits. I see Mail-Followup-To in a large fraction of mailing-list
messages. You're entitled to speculate that IETF action would increase
use of Mail-Followup-To, but you're not entitled to pretend that IETF
action is a prerequisite to widespread use of the protocol.
There was an Internet-Draft on it, which expired. There's no current I-D,
nor is there an RFC. In the context of the working group, getting that draft
back into current status would indeed be dusting off.
You'll note that I *did* specifically mention it's in current usage - what's
getting dusted off is the RFC status, not the header itself.
pgpaCyArrMQYC.pgp
Description: PGP signature