Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt etc.

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 02 January 2008 21:30 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JABAB-0003Ov-13; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:30:11 -0500
Received: from ietf-message-headers by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JABA9-0003NK-3w for; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:30:09 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JABA8-0003NC-Px for; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:30:08 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JABA6-0002Rz-E8 for; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:30:08 -0500
Received: from ( []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7024049C; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:29:53 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:29:52 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv: Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Lilly <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt etc.
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8c5db863102a3ada84e0cd52a81a79e
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1583797067=="

Bruce Lilly wrote:
> On 2008-01-02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Bruce Lilly wrote:
>>> You're getting decades ahead of yourself -- see below.
>> Apple Mail has had a feature like this for years (based on information 
>> in the address book, not a mail header), so I don't think I'm getting 
>> decades ahead of myself. In fact perhaps I'm several years behind the 
>> market.
> You may have missed my point, which is precisely that using an address book
> or other repository which can be easily updated via VCards (or LDAP, etc.)
> is much more likely to yield results quickly as opposed to convincing
> software authors to support special-purpose code to extract unrelated
> data from message header fields, waiting for such special-purpose code
> to be written, waiting for users to upgrade, etc.

You may have missed the point of the Jabber-ID header, which we defined 
so that the community of Jabber users could experiment with this usage. 
Whether that usage is the most effective way to tie together an email 
identity with a Jabber identity is another issue. We started to define 
the pres and im headers as a more general approach, but it could be that 
neither the general approach nor the specific Jabber approach is needed 
or even desirable.

Thanks for the feedback -- I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to 
pursue these I-Ds further (which I rather doubt).


Peter Saint-Andre

Ietf-message-headers mailing list