[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15
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.