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

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <489058DA.9070103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>I think it's rather odd that people are arguing that a proposed 
>extension to the 822 (i.e. user-to-user) protocol can only be used by 
>what is arguably mail transport (or on the boundary between transport 
>and the recipient's user agent).  It certainly doesn't belong in SMTP. 
>Nor does it belong in a body part, since it's clearly a message-level 
>function.

Eh? That header has no meaning whatsoever for RFC 2821 transport. Its only
possible effects arise _after_ 'final delivery', at which point it is
sitting in some sort of 'mailbox' (be it IMAP, POP3, or Hector's grand
archive with alread-existing purging mechanisms). So the feature certainly
has to be in an RFC 2822 header, if it exists at all.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5