Re: I-D ACTION:draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01.txt

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

>> With three related types already (DSN, MDN, MTSN), and some already
>> existing common use (e.g. Original-Recipient, Final-Recipient), the
>> benefits enumerated in 3864 seem clear.
> ...
>
> Any particular reason why these fields were not included in the initial 
> header registry? Sounds rather strange to me.

1. Because Bruce does not agree with how they are used today
    - which btw your use in feedback-report would not be consistant with
    because so far I've not seen them in the content (mime) and only as
    part of mail header that undergone some special processing
2. Because of you register these, you'd end up thiking about registing all
    the other Original- header fields which pretty much means registration
    of corresponding original header field for every already registered
    (and some not registered) header fields, kind of tiresome...
3. If you don't want to register several dozen fields one-by-one then
    it'd have to be proposal to modify header field registration system
    and create special new subtype of header registry for "Prefix-x"
    (which I'd still like to do but can't quite get to it).

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email protected]