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

Offhand, I like Expiry-Date.  I don't like Expires because NetNews 
deletes expired messages.

But since Expiry-Date is a MIXER field, I should probably go dig out my 
X.400 docs and check the X.400 definition to see if what we want is 
compatible with how they defined things way back when.

Keith


Michael Welzl wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 13:35 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>> IMO, if we can't make this new proposal of a Sender define "expires" 
>> header consistent with already existing standard practices, then IMO, 
>> it should be call something else.
> 
> To repeat the nice definition that Keith gave us, and which most
> of us seem to like:
> 
> "The sender believes this message will be irrelevant 
> after the indicated date/time."
> 
> - hence we could call it "Relevant-until:"
> 
> 
> The problem that I see with using a different name at this
> point is that "Expires" already exists, with roughly the
> meaning that we want - not only in the netnews context,
> but also for MIXER (RFC 2156), as a renamed version
> of the obsolete "Expiry-Date" field according to RFC 4021.
> Additionally, despite being obsolete, Expiry-Date is
> currently in use, in the way that we want, with MS Outlook.
> 
> So, when we weigh the pro's against the con's, is it worth
> changing the name to "Relevant-until"? I'm not sure...
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
>