Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keith Moore wrote:

> we're better off without a standard Expires header than with one 
> that would have the effect (intended or otherwise) of having such 
> messages be deleted without recipients' consent.

IBTD.  No documented standard with strange variations in syntax in
practice is worse than a clear standard with MUSTs and MUST NOTs.

Morons intentionally violating MUSTard are no compelling reason to
"undocument" Expires:.  And this header field exists in the Mixer
and Netnews RFCs, an attempt to "undocument" the idea is futile.

I think we are at the point where a fresh draft would be helpful.

 Frank