Waste of bandwidth? (Was: Let the header name be "Location:")

[Bill Wohler <wohler@xxxxxxxxx>]

dcrocker@brandenburg.com (Dave Crocker) writes:
>>The only thing that the above section accomplishes is waste bytes.

>	Roy!  We're talking about RFC822 and MIME, here.  The byte-counting
>war got lost 20 years ago.  Honest.

  Just curious--is this a common view?  Also, do you eschew
  byte-counting everywhere or do you differentiate between useful
  and frivolous header fields?

  What about signatures?  PGP signatures are beginning to make the wasted
  space by extra header fields pale in comparison.

  With the explosive growth of the Internet, byte-counting in the
  small will yield large rewards in the large.

  While HTTP traffic dwarfs SMTP traffic on the Internet, don't forget
  about UUCP and other networks that are still dominated by email
  traffic.
-- 

Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>   ph: +1-415-854-1857  fax: +1-415-854-3195
Say it with MIME.  Maintainer of comp.mail.mh and news.software.nn FAQs.
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.