[Ietf-message-headers] Re: Permanent or provisional?

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mon, 02 October 2006 06:00 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUGr1-0005xO-UC; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:00:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUGr0-0005tX-1D for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:00:38 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUGqx-0006nw-N6 for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:00:38 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GUGqn-00014z-JD for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:00:25 +0200
Received: from pd9fba910.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.169.16]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:00:25 +0200
Received: from nobody by pd9fba910.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:00:25 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:59:23 +0200
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4520AABB.42C4@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <45071704.6020400@jabber.org> <451C528C.2680@xyzzy.claranet.de> <451CE474.9030604@ninebynine.org> <200610020123.14093@mail.blilly.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fba910.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Cc:
Subject: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: Permanent or provisional?
X-BeenThere: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <ietf-message-headers.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-message-headers-bounces@ietf.org

Bruce Lilly wrote:

> Draft-lilly-legacy-fields is (was?) an attempt to resolve
> some of those, but it seems to have gotten bogged down...
[...]
> that that draft was written in April 2005 as announced here.

The 2nd of now 24 articles here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.message-headers:2

IIRC we discussed "Fcc" elsewhere.  What's the reason why you
don't ask for its publication ?  It's good to have such info
in the registry. 

> neither is particularly useful and both have either syntax or
> semantics problems that might have been resolved had the
> fields been discussed here.

Received-SPF was discussed elsewhere (actually it's the reason
why I read this list, but it never appeared here).  RFC 3865
was also discussed elsewhere.  My attempt to discuss the JID on
the rfc822 list failed.  Similar for Archived-At, I have that
article still on hold with date 2005-11-01 (rfc822 list).

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ietf-message-headers mailing list
Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers