Re: Avoiding X-Headers

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 05:53:52 CST


In <200201091423.g09EN1N14930@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel@acm.org> writes:

>In <yllmfihn8j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>, on 12/31/2001
> at 05:30 PM, Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> said:

>>I think Henry's arguing for the outlawing of propagation of X-
>>headers to Usenet as a whole.

>An alternative is to state in a note that X- headers are a temporary
>expedient and that the intent is to deprecate or drop propagation in
>the next Usefor standard, assuming that a registry RFC has been
>approved.

That would be to make them all 'variant' or 'local' or something, by
definition. But why? They do no harm. Current practice is to generate them
for all sorts of (most useless) purposes. People seem to like doing it.
Let them do so.

Just make sure they do not get used for anything needing wide deployment
in software. That is the only usage which does harm. That is what my
suggested text avoids.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk      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


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.