From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 17:22:31 CDT
Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk) writes:
> As to putting P&M in the body as well, I am again hearing conflicting
> views. Some of us have a dislike at specifying body contents in any way,
> and others have said it is only an interim measure until agents learn to
> do sensible things with P&M. Would you like me to put in a "MAY mention it
> in the body"?
But by then it should be clear that there is something fishy going on
here. It's true that Usefor discusses attribution, quoting and signature
which are part of the body. But is this blurb really part of Usefor?
After all, the information is of little interest in a news article. It
is more of interest in a mail.
This is a GKNSA thing. Or a separate document. But I fail to see that
Usefor could mention even a MAY here.
Usefor can define this header what it is to contain in a nes article.
But Usefor cannot define how it is to be interpreted in mail agent.
No, not even in an agent which supports both news and mail. If a mail
RFC suddenly defines a different semantics for this header, the mail
part of this combined agent must obey the mail RFC.
Terje Bless <link@tss.no> writes:
> No, I don't think so. Granted it won't go away soon, but it'll go away
> eventually when critical mass has been achieved. The blurb is an optional
> nicety anyway so it's not a problem to remove it before 100% penetration
> has been achieved.
First step is to get it into a mail RFC. Before that, the header is
not even meaningful in mail. And as I understand it DRUMS is passed
last call, so you missed this bus. And when it eventually get ths
header into a mail RFC, you only have to wait for people to move to
new mailers. I may be extremely conservative, sticking to old mailx,
but then again, I haven't found anything better.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se