From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 09:41:29 CST
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>
> In <Gpq11s.5AA@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, on 01/10/2002
> at 11:53 AM, chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) said:
>
> >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.
>
> I don't care whether X- headers are allowed to propogate in perpetuity
> or are eventually dropped. Some others posters have objected to them,
> and my concern is that *if* they are dropped it should be in a fashion
> allowing for an orderly transition.
Sounds right. There is no pressing reason to get rid of X-headers, and
some serious effort to actually make them go away. Therefore, high
effort, small gain, sounds like a good thing to not do.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me