Re: New Filtering Draft version posted

I'll add XML viewing and uploading to the RFC wiki presently,
leaving alone any formatting tags within paragraphs, or possibly
checking that a block is well formed in the editing function, when
XML is seen.  That will take care of line wrapping.


More to the direct point, I think that the two different directions
we are in,

	1:   define a language for communicating gathered data

	2:   define mechanisms for shared Bayesian tuning feedback

easily warrant creating two documents.  That way, discussion of the
how-we-arrived-at-our-conclusion statement in an Is-Junk header can
refer to an external source, and other protocols that might use the
language can refer to the same source without having the language
description encumbered by inclusion in a description of a different
protocol.

Is-[Not-]* and If-[Not-]* headers might make sense for classifications
other than junk, of course; maybe it makes sense to describe more
general mechanisms.




On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 10:51, Philip Miller wrote:
> ...
> That's the general pattern in IETF-related work. However, small groups 
> working closely on a draft are certainly permitted to communicate privately 
> amongst themselves, as long as the responsible group is kept informed and 
> supports the final output.

-- 
david nicol
this message was sent from a filtering e-mail address.
Until I add you to my friends list, to get by Big Emet
the cowboy doorman your reply must include a listed
"magic phrase" such as "cat and buttered toast"