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

Hector Santos wrote:
> 
> 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.

...and that's just insane.   it gives filters license to degrade email 
reliability even more than they are already doing.

Keith