Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15
Michael Welzl <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Organization | University of Innsbruck |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 11:20 +0100, Paul Smith wrote: > Chris Haynes wrote: > > 2) Can the semantics of an 'expired' message be agreed and communicated in a clean, simplistic, non-technical way? > > > I'm not sure they can be expressed in any way at all... All I can figure > out so far is that the expiry of a message implies it's possibly not > quite as important, urgent or valid to the > sender/recipient/some-other-person as it would have been before it expired. > > I'm not sure that's a tight enough definition :) I think that this is as good as it gets. In a previous email, I wrote: > "it becomes less important after that date because it is somehow > bound to it". which has the same meaning. We automatically agree on this meaning because it's obvious, so defining it cleanly shouldn't be too difficult. Cheers, Michael