From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 09:52:03 CDT
Peter Alfredsen <peteralf@fabel.dk> proposed:
> Ok, I have pieced this together from the other proposed wordings. It is plain,
> it is simple, and it is what I really want - I support the notion that there
> should be some kind of date appendix to the header, but I have not included it
> in this text:
Since the meaning and perhaps existance of date= in this header is the
really contentious issue as I see it, I don't object to anything
actually in this wording, actually I really like it, but it is only a
starting point.
> 6.12. Archive
>
> This optional header provides an indication of the poster's wishes
> regarding preservation of the article in publicly accessible archiving
> agents. This MUST be indicated with either "yes or "no"
>
> Archive-content = [CFWS] ("no" | "yes" ) [CFWS]
>
> NOTE: There is no way to assure that articles posted to USENET are
> actually not archived, because of the distributed nature of USENET.
> The poster of an article must not expect that any post marked with
> "Archive: no" will not be made available in one form or another, on
> or off USENET.
Since you are on a roll, keep proposing... I personally feel that it
is important to have wording on the date= say something meaning "SHOULD
not be available after the indicated date" rather than anything implying
that it must be removed completely.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me