From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 09:16:36 CST
In <40563DF9.2000406@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>J.B.Moreno wrote:
>> As for the registry -- fine, everyone else can use our definition, it's what
>> they *do* even if it's not how they define it.
>The definition for the Subject field is going to be RFC 2822's definition.
>The fact is that we will be obliged to use that definition for the Subject
>field. You have zero chance of changing that fact; your time and effort
>would be better spent tilting at windmills.
It is not at all helpful for you to misrepresent what the intended
Registry will do. Since I had a considerable part in drawing up that
proposal, I should know what is in it.
It DOES NOT mandate any particular definitions (because that is not what
IANA Registries are for), and it DOES make provision for different
protocols to define a given header differently.
-- 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@clerew.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