X-headers cause uexpected behavior

Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> Thu, 08 April 1999 10:13 UTC

Received: from CS.UTK.EDU (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00678 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:13:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA07214; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:10:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:10:40 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA07196; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:10:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from info.dsv.su.se (info.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.221]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA07179; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:10:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [130.237.161.11] (dola.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.11]) by info.dsv.su.se (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06397 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:10:31 +0200 (MET DST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: jpalme@mail.dsv.su.se
Message-Id: <v04020a10b3322e68bade@[130.237.161.11]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 12:10:38 +0200
To: IETF working group on revision of mail standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Subject: X-headers cause uexpected behavior
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

I recently got a message from a developer who had put his
own e-mail header "X-Message:" for special private needs of
his application. However, this user had found that this
caused confusion to MS Outlook, which also seemed to be
X-Message:" for its alternative uses.

Perhaps the DRUMS document should be modified to indicate
that "X-"headers should have the format "X-<vnd>-header"
where <vnd> might for example be MS, so that future
Microsoft private headers should be for example
"X-MS-Message" instead of just "X-Message". This might
avoid future similar problems.

I know this is not 100% safe, to get that we would have to
adopt object identifiers, which is probably not so popular,
but it would at least reduce the risk of this kind of
problem a lot.

Perhaps add the following text to the end of chapter 3.6.8
in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt:

    Private, non-standardized optional-fields should contain
    the acronym of the vendor in order to avoid the risk
    of two vendors using the same field name for different
    purposes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme