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

In <[email protected]> Chris Haynes <[email protected]> writes:

>On Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 10:15:06 AM, 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).

>Many of the responses so far have expressed concern about what UAs might or might not do with this information.  Debating these UA technical options are secondary to two key questions:

>1) Would the widespread introduction / use of this header by senders
>cause any damage to / loss of messages in (unmodified) UAs as currently
>deployed?

Only if they were gatewayed into Netnews, in which case obeying the
Expires header would be a desirable "feature".

>2) Can the semantics of an 'expired' message be agreed and communicated
>in a clean, simplistic, non-technical way?

Keith's definition is about right, and is fully consistent with the
Netnews definition.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email protected]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5