Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15

On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 15:08 +0000, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:15 +0200, Michael Welzl wrote:
> > So we propose to standardize such a header. We would do this
> > by reviving the "Expiry" part of
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15
> > (we've been in touch with the draft's author, Jacob Palme,
> > about this, and he likes the idea).
> 
> I like this. I'd retain this part as well:
> 
> "The word "client" may in this text designate functionality,
> which some implementations actually implement wholly or partly
> in a server. For example, in the case of IMAP and NNTP, it is
> very common to implement functionality, which logically may be
> regarded as belonging to a client, in the server."
> 
> No sense in sending a message if it is old in the first place. With
> anti-spam systems delaying email for extended periods of time, this does
> happen.

Sounds good to me, thanks for the suggestion!


> It is also unclear to me what the date-time field is suppose to look
> like. It seems to be a RFC822 date updated to have 4 digit years. It
> could also be:
> 
> 22 Jul 2008 11:03 -0500
> 
> I'd rather have it be RFC3339 date format. But I have no idea how MS
> deals with that.

The way MS does it conforms with RFC 2822.
e.g.: Expiry-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0200

In our proposal, in any case we'll definite it based on existing
related standards (such as "Expires" in RFC 4021 and possibly
also the netnews related expiry date that was previously mentioned)
as appropriately as possible. We'll have to look into this and
come up with a coherent and clean proposal.

Cheers,
Michael