From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 30 2000 - 13:59:35 CST
In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10010291632070.18370-100000@spock.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
>Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se):
>>People not sending CC:s with Posted-and-Mailed will cause
>>you, John Stanley and a few more to get pissed, but I can't see an
>>interoperability problem.
>1. It prevents automated processing from taking place, just like a bad
>Message-Id does.
Yes, but since our draft does not define any specific "operability" for
this header (otherwise than to be informational) we could hardly say that
any interoperability would be lost if it wasn't there. That is why, in my
present draft, including the header is only a SHOULD, rather than a MUST.
But clearly, we expect the marketplace to come up with useful ways for
automatically acting upon it, which is why it is there as a header and not
simply a body message (the body message is an optional extra, and if the
marketplace screams loudly enough for that, then it might even get it).
>2. It makes life less convenient for a few people, just like posting with
>a munged From: header does.
But this case IS different. The "operability" of the From header is well
defined (it is for generating email replies, amongst other things). And
munging it has visible evil effects on the network (like causing extra
unnecessary DNS lookups). So a clear issue of interoperability arises.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 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