Date: 14 Oct 2016 13:46:58 -0600
From: "Andy Bradford" <amb-x...@bradfords.org>
Message-ID: <20161014134658.23137.qm...@angmar.bradfordfamily.org>
| Why? What's wrong with "X-"? If the intent of RFC 6648 is to do away
| with any special interpretation of "X-" in headers, then why make such a
| statement thus giving a new special interpretation of "X-"?
Technically, you're right, X- should be the same as A- or any other two
random (permitted) chars as the first two of a field name. The issue is
that people don't think of it that way - because of its history, people
with a little (but not a lot) of knowledge of e-mail standards assume that
X- field names are special, so unless you really know what you're doing, it
is best to avoid it (which is what SHOULD NOT means.)
If you're working for a company called X Y Z Software Inc (or something)
and you want to name a new field X-Y-Z-myname no-one is going to question
it. But if you just feel like inventing a new field and calling it X-myname
then you really should think again.
One of the nice things about the change (long ago now really) in the X-
rule, is that (if there were any benefit at all in doing it) the IETF is
now able to standardise the widely used X-Mailer field (without being
forced to change the name, and by so doing, making a big mess.)
kre
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
