Despite IETF snobbery, has decades of use. It has defects as
a vacation program tamer, but those would be better fixed by coming up
with a replacement than by ignoring the problem. IETF effort on that
would be better spent than on some (but not all) of the newest SMTP
elaborations.
Could you please point me at the standards (or otherwise) documents
that describe the semantics of 'Precedence:'? It sounds interesting
but I just can't seem to find out what you mean or expect it to do.
And do you happen to know the name of the standards body that
approved that standard? Perhaps I can find it that way.
In other words, the IETF itself is not above some standads bending..
what standard are you referring to?
How about hoping that X-Loop will be preserved by those peered mailing
lists and other gateways and so prevent loops?
FYI: X-<anything> is by definition - not standard header.
...
My point is that in rational eyes, a blessing from the ITU in Switzerland
or the IESG is neither necessary nor always sufficent to make a standard.
A standard is what http://www.m-w.com/ says, "something established by
authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example."
..
Something can be 'standard' and never used by anyone. Something can be
used by everyone and never a 'standard'.
However the word 'standard' does not mean 'used by a bigger number of
people'.
I'd rather that AOL took outside comments on their standards, but they're
still standards.
Please point me at those standards. Or did you mean undocumented
protocols? Or did you mean documented and not public protocols?
no more or less than the latest embrace-and-extend brain
fart incompletely described in RFC format from the Pacific Northwest.
AOL's standards are not non-proprietary, open, or sanctioned by the IETF,
but they're as much standards as the greats on which the IETF bases its
existence.
I think the standard definition of standard includes, approved,
reviewed, and publicly available.
-Doug