From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue Apr 27 2004 - 13:24:18 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <4087D7E0.5020108@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>>>>That is exactly the sort of extension we might be able to make in the
>>>>>future once we have established that MIME-style parameters are a feature
>>>>>of all headers. But for the moment it is a recipe for causing all sorts of
>>>>>presently working things to stop working.
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with "MIME-style parameters".
>>>>In fact, you have maintained that such parameters cannot be used with any
>>>>field whose field body might contain email addresses, so effectively you
>>>>have proved my earlier point that specifying such parameters in the syntax
>>>>is a premature constraint on possible future directions.
>>>
>>>
>>>That would not apply if the email address were to be included within some
>>>parameter, as in
>>>
>>> Followup-To: poster; address="foo@example.com"
>
>
>>There is no need for such contortions, as
>> Followup-To: poster
>>and
>> Followup-To: foo@example.com
>>are unambiguous. The first of those is legal and the second is less likely
>>to cause problems than your example.
>
>
> On the contrary, the second would cause problems if the address had a ";"
> in it.
Only in the case of broken parsers if MIME parameters were used with this
non-MIME header field. No problem (due to no possibility of confusion
with a newsgroup name or with "poster") in my proposal.
> Anyway, the point is moot because neither could be introduced onto
> Usenet at the present time because of the need for backwards
> compatibility.
By the same argument, Mail-Copies-To cannot be introduced.
>>The draft introduces Mail-Copies-To, and there are conflicts in the
>>specified usage. One method of eliminating the conflicts has been proposed.
>>If you would like to propose an alternative, by all means do so.
>
>
> What conflicts? I have already fixed the minor problem that you raised
> earlier (see the new 8.6 Step 5).
What "new 8.6 step 5"? The only 8.6 that I have access to is dated November
2003, so can hardly be called "new".
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################