Re: [Extra] Fwd: Personnel change for extra WG

Arnt Gulbrandsen <> Sun, 31 March 2019 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A0F1200B6 for <>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 00:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ixNT1BBb8g-A for <>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 00:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6872F12008F for <>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 00:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588BEC04F5; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 09:00:10 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1554019210; bh=osyRw52LqX15gDxn/ZJhTshC+TsHFXYpKC6pbxpgZmk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=B192RkU2M3ogJ45U6ISl0CIEaxWo5HzKo0nava7dCThfrUdEabMRapWno9Cij+akR ezCj47Bat6646WBC8jw7BDnM8kGsPSuvtEe+2/T9ZoXZbMR7qa/qYqd/CGIFD1raus v/7qbsuG6QD+m1kBE91ls9+xWpcWIZRGMwaiTvj0=
Received: from by (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1554019209-26265-2661/9/92; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 08:00:09 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 09:58:04 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.7.1; xcb; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 2.0 (ascii)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Fwd: Personnel change for extra WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:58:10 -0000

On Friday 29 March 2019 19:44:53 CET, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> In this particular case, there's a pretty good piece of prior 
> art for the name in RFC5232, plus multiple mentions online.

Oh, that was easy to misunderstand, wasn't it. Sorry. I didn't mean to say 
that this particular flag was a bad candidate for standardisation. Rather 
that we already have two many piecemeal standardisations. If there's 
another RFC, it should make some attempt to cover most of the flags that 
ought to be standardised at this point in time.


> That sounds reasonable.  I'd be happy to help with a document 
> like that, or find someone else at FastMail who might want their 
> name on an RFC in exchange for doing the work :)

I can edit, iff two big providers will produce flag lists. Alone or with a 

I like the way Neil has used github.