Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15
"Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In <[email protected]> Hector Santos <[email protected]> writes: >In my view, the conflictive issues are: >1) Servers which employ automatic purging of old messages > MAY let this field influence the purging process. >or >2) Servers which employ automatic purging of old messages > MUST NOT let this field influence the purging process. >or >3) Servers which employ automatic purging of old messages > SHOULD NOT let this field influence the purging process > without USER PERMISSION. But what do you mean be "servers" here? Surely you don't mean MTAs, because they are not in the business of storing messages (beyond maybe for 7 days or so trying to deliver a message, after which then bounce it back up the Return-Path as "undeliverable")? Or do you mean IMAP and POP servers? AFAICS, those are the _only_ places where some semantic action connected with the Expires header MIGHT be specified, and even there it would have to be a user-configurable option. But that is a matter to be dealt with in some future IMAP-bis or POP-bis standard. -- 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