[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt

2005-04-01 11:00:27

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 "errors-to".

but, as I say about all the content of the email-arch document, the deciding factor is any indication of community preference.

"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.

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.