[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intent to revive "expires" header fromdraft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 00:40 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> usepro doesn't define header fields. Header fields are
> >> defined in usefor. From draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-11.txt:
> > ACK. Keith kind of insisted that there must be some issue
> > with news in the proposal for mail, and I double-checked
> > that this isn't the case.
> IMV, the only difference is that news processing does not have to
> concern itself with USER options.
> For news, Expires has been processed as a removal concept.
> i.e, the news article is no longer available and/or truncated.
> Keith desires user permission. Difficult to apply in news groups.
but we're not redefinining Expires for newsgroups. There is
some similarity between these two things here, but it's
not exactly the same.
> IMV, this is thee key philosophical issue here. All I am saying is:
> Expiration already exist outside any externally declared
> expiration related flag. For news Expires helps the process.
> But User permission is not required for news or email
> storage purging. There are default settings already in place.
> So if this EXPIRES is introduced as a standard, how does it change the
> existing default expiration practice?
For a whole lot of messages / situations, we don't want the
existing default expiration practice - but I would still like
to have the new "Expires" field for these situations.
This is going back to the old list of examples at the beginning
of this discussion: calls for papers, talk announcements and such.
We don't want systems to automatically delete such emails, but
my MUA should show them in a special way.
> What I find difficult to swallow is the attempt to make this a backend
> transparent concept - for offline MUA only. I don't think that is
The obsolete "Expiry-Date" header is still used by MS Outlook,
but I don't know of any backend system that would automatically
delete such emails (except maybe the Exchange server, but that
doesn't count because that would be intentionally so!)
> But calling it "Expires?" Sorry, don't be surprise if someone uses
> this outside the proposal intent to keep backends or operators from
> using it. Its too juicy. Nothing like it exist (in email) to get rid
> of mail with zero false positive. The sender says "On this date, this
> message is no longer useful, valid, its useless", rest assured it
> will be taken literally and they are not going to wait for a user to
> get rid of it, especially when their 3rd party offline user is not
> prepare to support it. Centralize systems will be the key beneficiary,
Go ahead: let your server automatically delete emails
carrying an "Expiry-Date" from MS Outlook if it looks like
the email would have expired, and see if your users would
love or hate you for doing that.