Re: Filtering Header Draft Discussion

To reiterate my positions, here they are:

I think that shared spam corpus refinement is an application that belongs in
the examples in the draft.  If a shared corpus refinement system based on
is-[not-]junk declaration and status correction instructions does not appear
in the draft, a working system that provides such using the framework described
in the draft belongs as a second, associated draft, as an example of a system
written to the framework.

I think that a tagger should rewrite existing tags of its name or
discard them, and to support this a standard for rewriting that allows the
original to be extracted should be included.

I think that new tags belong at the top of headers rather than the bottom and
I think the draft should address this

That's all I recall at the moment :)


-- 
David L Nicol
transportation infrastructure technology contracting since 2002