From: Ralph Babel (rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 02:24:04 CDT
> 1. Signed headers
>
> A. Do we proceed on the basis of
> draft-lindsey-usefor-signed-00.txt?
[NO]
> The alternative to proceeding with the present draft is
> to invite completely separate proposals (I think there is
> agreement that _some_ mechanism of this sort is needed).
[NO] The alternative is to finish the basic
format description first, then address the
problem for both mail and news.
> B. In the event the answer to A is YES, do we canonicalise
> dates as days since Jan 1st 1970 (in which case a time
> hh:mm:60 canonicalises the same as hh:mm+1:00) or do we
> canonicalise dates using date-time syntax (in which case
> hh:mm:60 and hh:mm+1:00 are regarded as different).
[NONE OF THE ABOVE] Sign as is. Do not canonicalize.
Anyone who rewrites headers should get what they deserve.
> 2. "ought"
[NO]
> 3. Mail-Copies-To
>
> Do we proceed to define the Mail-Copies-To header?
[NO]
> If NO, it would be helpful to indicate
> any alternative you have in mind.
Separate RFC. Should fix related problems as well (e.g.
"Followup-To: poster" not allowing a list of suggested
newsgroups in case someone wants to respond publically
nonetheless; "mail preferred, but never both mail and news";
mailing-list reponses etc.: from, reply-to, to, cc).