On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:05:56AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
Since Mail-Followup-To (to the best of my knowledge) was never ratified as a standard (and the draft has since expired), and is not supported by
Yes, the draft expired in 1998 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to/).
most mainstream MUAs, is it worth changing the official default to "no", or even dropping support entirely? Is supporting a draft that never
Changing defaults is always controversial, but since it is not widely supported, the effect may be limited. I'm in support of changing the default, but not removing it.
became a standard considered standards-compliant, or not?
3.6.8. Optional Fields Fields may appear in messages that are otherwise unspecified in this document. They MUST conform to the syntax of an optional-field. http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=5322#section-3.6.8
