From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Wed Oct 18 2000 - 02:51:37 CDT
Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se) writes:
> > Other people on this list say that they want this information in the
> > header because it's "structured information", and it appears that they
> > want their mailer to do something magic with it.
>
> It isn't magic. I want my mail processing system to be able to throw away
> messages that come from USENET unbidden into my email.
Obviously you want to do more with it than Charles intended.
> > If the only point with including this information is for display, the
> > body is a far more better place, because in the header it will be
> > hidden.
>
> Some people could say that the only point in including the From:
> information is for display. Ditto Date. Ditto "In Reply To". Ditto
> "References". By your argument, these all belong in the body and not the
> header.
But "From" is nicely displayed in the list of my mails. In some mailers,
the user would have to head over heels to find any Posted-and-Mailed.
It is possible that some people would say that Reference is only for
display. But they would be wrong. Possibly Charles is also wrong when
he says that P-A-M is for display only. Problem is that he can't
specify a behaviour for it in a news standard.
> What possible reason is there not to make this a "MUST"? What breaks if
> this header is included, as opposed to preventing stealth CC's if it is
> mandatory?
Nothing breaks, but only suffices to evade a SHOULD NOT and possibly to
motivate a MAY. To motivate a MUST, you have to tell us what breaks
if nothing is included.
It is also quite surprising that your first strongly argumentet against
verifying the From address having MUST - where you had a point - and
now call for a MUST for something which is completely irrelevant for
interoperability.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se