> Keith Moore wrote:
> > we're better off without a standard Expires header than with one
> > that would have the effect (intended or otherwise) of having such
> > messages be deleted without recipients' consent.
> IBTD. No documented standard with strange variations in syntax in
> practice is worse than a clear standard with MUSTs and MUST NOTs.
+1. I spend way too much time on such messes already; anything we can do to
eliminate them is a good idea IMO.
> Morons intentionally violating MUSTard are no compelling reason to
> "undocument" Expires:. And this header field exists in the Mixer
> and Netnews RFCs, an attempt to "undocument" the idea is futile.
And more to the point, there appears to a move towards using it now, for
whatever reason. Sometimes when you brush these ideas off they go away, but
other times they move into wide use without agreed upon semantics.
> I think we are at the point where a fresh draft would be helpful.
Agreed. I think we're pretty close to something viable here.
Ned
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.