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

Michael Welzl wrote:

> I don't understand that. I have seen wide agreement that we
> don't want to specify behavior #1, so why do you call this
> more realistic?

Because the practice of automatic purging already exist without any 
flags, and clearly without user permission.  That is reality.

This proposal attempts to introduce a new header that would require a 
change and alteration ($$$) of this existing design and practice.

IMO, this is asking much more than what is realistically more 
possible, which is to simply state:

    Servers which employ automatic purging of old messages
    MAY let this field influence the purging process.

Once there is a criteria of user permission, I think you can run into 
an ugly game of users having a false illusion of controls they never 
had in the first place.

-- 
HLS