From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 13:15:24 CDT
Henry Spencer wrote:
> Why would it be improper for this document to fully define References?
> The *meaning* of the message IDs -- what they should and shouldn't point
> to -- is part of the definition of the header.
>
> There is no existing other document to defer to -- news usage differs
> sharply from mail usage here, so RFC 2822 is not satisfactory -- and no
> reason to separate part of our definition into a different document.
Message-id identify messages (big surprise, right?). And "news" and
"mail" do not differ in this respect; message-ids and the References
header field date back at least to RFC 724 (which predates Usenet by
years), and have continued through RFCs 733 and 822 to 2822. Now
exactly which part of RFC 2822 do you believe is not satisfactory
w.r.t. the References header field?