Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt
given the rfc2821 language, it is tempting to change the document to use the
term "errors". the problem, then, is that it might be confused with
"Community preference" for a standards track document should be the
community of people who read and implement standards, of course; and I'm
reluctant to speak to that. I live in the world of operations staff and
highly educated end users, even the best of whom are uncertain about
which parts of the message are contained in the header and which in the
envelope. For many years I've tried -- and failed -- to craft language
that would allow these people to reliably verbalize "RFC2821 MAIL FROM"
or "RFC 2822 From." Six months ago, we (at Habeas) started using the
term "bounce address" and the result has been amazing. No one ever needs
the term exaplained more than once; and from then on the dialog
continues with no confusion or ambiguity. For the first time in 15
years, ordinary people can say what they mean and have it understood.
but, as I say about all the content of the email-arch document, the deciding
factor is any indication of community preference.
If the architecture doc does not standardize on the term "bounce
address," it should at least acknowledge that the term is very useful
for its clarity in ordinary human conversation.