Re: The need for two headers

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 04:33:50PM -0500, Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 13:01 04/02/07 +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
> >
> >I'd propose to split the information which was stored
> >in the RFC822 header into two, completely separate headers
> >(maybe "header" isn't a good word anymore):
> 
> I somewhat agree, but would go further: I would like to
> see the whole thing much more like onion layering.
> different processing steps for a message may add new
> headers/metadata, but they would do so in clearly
> identifiable and separated layers. I don't think that
> a limitation on two layers (they way I would describe
> your proposal) is necessary or beneficial.



I fully agree with you. Every processing step should 
open a new "pocket" and fill in what is to be filled in 
(Received, Rewritten, Error messages, RMX, LMAP, encryption,
...) Good point.


Depending on the data structure to be chosen for the
headers you might have this anyway. For example, in 
RFC821/22 you just have a linear flat list. A future 
format could be a hierarchy, where every node opens
a new subtree. E.g. an XML document.

regards
Hadmut