In <41C87921.5000404@xxxxxxxxx> Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
3. Mail-Copies-To and Posted-And MailedThe WG has enough things to do already, so we should do 2) or even 3).
Available options appear to be:
1. Include them as in draft-13 2a. Defer them to a future document (standards-track) 2b. Defer them to a future document (experimental) 3. Drop them entirely
Earlier discussions were inconclusive. I gather our Chair prefers #2 (a or
b), but he has made no definitive pronouncement.
Well the definition of these, should we retain them, is not in dispute (it
just codifies a moderately implemented existing practice). The texts
exist. It would cost 15 minutes of my time to remove them from USEPRO, or
15 minutes of Ken's time to add them to USEFOR, whichever we decide.
I agree. I just don't want to spend another few weeks debating the issue.
What were the arguments against? Just a little unease expressed by one,[...]
maybe two, persons IIRC.
6. Remove filename parameter from the Archive header.
Had probably better wait until we have decided on Injection-Info. If a
MIME filename= parameter is considered good enough for the
Content-Disposition header (where MUAs regularly need to parse and act
upon it), then I can't see why it is not suitable for Archive (where it
only needs to be interpreted by a few special purpose archiving agents).
I have not seen any argument in support of the "filename" parameter. If there is no support - we don't need to document it.
I was just thinking about recent discussion with Frank about mandatory space after field names, etc.7. FWS issue in headers.Please specify what you have in mind here.