At 17:06 29-08-2008, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Usenet Article Standard Update
>WG (usefor) to consider the following document:
>
>- 'Netnews Architecture and Protocols '
> as a Proposed Standard
Section 3.4 of this I-D states that:
"Contrary to [RFC2822], wh
(I am not a subscriber to the ietf list and would appreciate copies of
replies.)
SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Section 3.4 of this I-D states that:
>
> "Contrary to [RFC2822], which implies that the mailbox or mailboxes in
>the From header field should be that of the poster or posters, a
At 19:44 21-09-2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
(I am not a subscriber to the ietf list and would appreciate copies of
replies.)
Cc as requested.
The message is still meaningful; however, it violates a SHOULD in RFC 2822
(well, sort of, depending on how you interpret "belong" in the case of an
addre
(I am not a subscriber to the ietf list and would appreciate copies of
replies.)
SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 19:44 21-09-2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> The message is still meaningful; however, it violates a SHOULD in RFC
>> 2822 (well, sort of, depending on how you interpret "belong" in t
Hi Russ,
[I-D author requested Cc]
At 19:35 24-09-2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, I find that statement unobjectionable but essentially meaningless,
in that I don't think the document says anything substantively different
including that statement than without it. But if it makes others feel
mo
I admit it: I'm not a fan of X- headers.
Why not just register a header in the header registry and be done with
it, rather than encouraging yet-another set of X-headers, all possibly
named differently? Why encourage the use of X- headers in a standards
track document?
For example, consider using
