Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Changes to netnews header registrations

Julien ÉLIE <> Mon, 16 May 2016 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1211412B051 for <>; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id crA5-x8Cxckq for <>; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28BB12D12E for <>; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home ([]) by mwinf5d07 with ME id v3x01s00G17Lgi4033x1uj; Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:04 +0200
X-ME-Helo: macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home
X-ME-Auth: anVsaWVuLmVsaWVAd2FuYWRvby5mcg==
X-ME-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:04 +0200
To: "" <>,,
References: <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?= <>
Organization: TrigoFACILE --
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Resent-From: <>
Cc: Graham Klyne <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Changes to netnews header registrations
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:04:38 -0000

Hi Graham,

> TL;DR: I don't propose to recommend the additional changes you suggest
> as I'm not seeing that they really contribute to the purpose of the
> registry (cf.

OK, Content-* header fields used by netnews are not supposed to be 
registered.  Yet, is it the same for MIME-Version, that is not mentioned 
in neither Section 1 nor Section 2.2.2 of RFC3864?

> 2. With reference to the X-headers you mention, I see little point in
> adding new, non-standard headers to the registry simply to indicate they
> are now obsolete.  (There could be a case for doing this if they are in
> widespread use, but I think that should be a separate discussion, and a
> new RFC with its own IANA considerations section. I suspect it's not
> worth the effort!)

It depends on when we can say a header field is "wide-spread".
I've just had a look in two newsgroups:

* last 1043 messages (roughly October 2014-May 2016) in
391 (37%) contain X-Trace
216 (21%) contain X-Complaints-To

* last 1437 messages (roughly August 2014-May 2016) in soc.culture.french:
612 (43%) contain X-Trace
97 (7%) contain X-Complaints-To

Of course wider stats should be done because the generation of these 
headers depend on the news servers the users connect to.

X-Trace seems in wide-spread use, though.
I agree that writing a new RFC to just obsolete it is probably not worth 
the effort.  However, maybe X-Trace (and maybe other headers) could be 
added in IANA considerations section of an update of RFC 5536 if we ever 
move it to Draft Standard?

Julien ÉLIE

« La différence entre un chanteur et une paire de chaussures est que
   le chanteur doit partir avant de lasser. La paire de chaussures, il
   vaut mieux les lacer avant de partir. » (Philippe Geluck)