Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15
Chris Eastlund <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> Having a stricter definition would help IMHO, as the sender would have > a chance to know how the recipient will interpret it, and the > recipient will have a chance to know what the sender meant by it. A stricter definition should tell the recipient exactly what the sender meant, or at least exactly what it could mean per RFC. I don't see anyway for this to predict how the recipient will chose to interpret it. Or at least the probably of determining the senders intention is a lot higher than that of determining the recipients interpretation. IMHO, unless a response is required from the recipient, the recipients actual interpretation is moot. All we can ask is that the senders intention is clear. Chris