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

On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 12:05 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > I'd like to see commitments or indications from MUA implementors that 
> > they would plan to implement if it were standardized.
> 
> 
> Lisa,
> 
> It could be interesting to make this a regular requirement, for 
> authorizing standards work.  (The IETF used to have a version of it.)\
> 
> But it isn't common practice now, so I'm curious what prompts imposing 
> the requirement for this case?
> 
> d/

I agree that this isn't common practice now, but I also agree
that it would be useful to see such commitment. I can get in
touch with developers of MUAs and ask them for such a commitment
(without myself commiting to give up in case that they don't
react! because I think that *requiring* such a commitment
beforehand is at least unusual).

Any suggestions about which MUA implementors I should contact?

Cheers,
Michael

PS: I think that MS with its not (or no-longer) standard-conforming
approach make a point for us: they already have the feature, and
surely doing this in a conformant way would be an easy change
(they could still additionally keep their old header in emails
if they want), and potentially beneficial for them.