Re: Getting 2822 to Draft

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Would 2822bis obsolete 822 fully?  If so, I believe it should mention
> what happened to the X- header prefix that was part of 822.  I don't
> believe simply removing them without stating why is a good idea,
> people can draw many different conclusions from that, which affect
> real implementations.

some people think X- headers are extremely useful, others think they 
were a bad mistake that should be eradicated.  maybe we need a separate 
RFC about X- fields.  I'd hate to see this argument block progression 
of 2822 bis.