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

[ned+ietf-822@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> 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.

+1. I spend way too much time on such messes already; anything we  can do to
eliminate them is a good idea IMO.

> 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.

And more to the point, there appears to a move towards using it now, for
whatever reason. Sometimes when you brush these ideas off they go away, but
other times they move into wide use without agreed upon semantics.

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

Agreed. I think we're pretty close to something viable here.

				Ned