Re: Resent- fields
Philip Hazel <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote: > No, "header" in the mail standards has a very clear meaning: I entirely agree. However, I observe that there is very widespread misuse of this terminology, leading to possible confusion. > Your proposal, which is to replace precise, > well-defined terms with poorly-defined colloquialisms, would > have a negative effect on interoperability and on general > understanding of messages and messaging protocols. It was a point for discussion, not a formal proposal, and as such it succeeded. :-) If, however, I had been making a formal proposal, it would have been to replace precise, well-defined but frequently misunderstood terms with new, equally precise, equally well-defined, but less likely to be misused or misunderstood terms. However, I didn't actually expect anything to happen other than there to be a discussion, which at least raises the point in people's minds. Philip -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, [email protected] Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.