Archive (was: Issues outstanding)

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Lindsey wrote:

  [3. Mail-Copies-To and Posted-And Mailed}
>> I just don't want to spend another few weeks debating the issue.

> A quick head count, perhaps?

Count me against Posted-And-Mailed.  You say that some UAs know
it, that's fine, but my UA does not, and in the extremely rare
cases when I get a "courtesy copy" I want this info in the body
of the message.  Otherwise I would love to auto-killfile any
unsolicited Posted-And-Mailed without info in the body, but my
UA also has no killfile (for news).  This header is a PITA and
conflicts with any minimal netiquette I know of.

  [6. Remove filename parameter from the Archive header]
> Please do bear in mind that it is hard to add new stuff to
> existing headers in the future

The complete "Archive:" is dead on arrival, even without the
filename.  Some existing software supports X-NoArchive somehow,
e.g. Google now interprets it as "expires after 7 days".  X-No
discussions in groups like de.soc.recht.datennetze (I don't
know an equivalent, something like "cyber law") are always
unsatisfying, many users don't want their articles abused by
a commercial Web forum as "support", but X-No doesn't really
help.  Maybe a recommendation in USEAGE about a configurable
"Expires:" default would be better than X-No or Archive: NO ?

> That is the whole beauty of MIME-style parameters,

After 2231 nothing about MIME parameters is still beautiful :-(

And the filename stuff just makes no sense for different file
systems, let alone I18N.  Martin's Archived-At: is the future.

> that beauty was indeed marred by the RFC 2231 mess

Yes.  If the FAQ-hunters really want new tricks they could try
to (ab)use Summary: or Keywords:, almost nobody else uses these
headers, adding another dead header is dubious.   Bye, Frank