On Thu January 6 2005 10:21, Tony Finch wrote:
As I've already explained in some detail, the term "SMTP evelope" is
defined by RFC 1123 (STD 3).
As Dave's draft doesn't use "SMTP envelope", what's the problem?
If you have a specific suggestion other than "envelope" for
describing those parts of a message which are not part
of the end-to-end communication, please let's discuss it.
"transport-related header fields" and "user-related header fields".
Some comments on your suggestions:
1. As you have yourself noted, several fields do not fall
neatly into either transport-related or user-related
2. "transport-related header fields" is rather unwieldy -- try
using that where Dave uses "envelope" in the draft -- I
believe it's impractical
3. In several places where Dave uses "envelope", that term
refers to a combination of extra-message information
plus parts of the message header; "transport-related
header fields" therefore isn't quite the same thing.