Re: Issues outstanding

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> Posted-And-Mailed would work fine with mailing lists.

If it works for mailing lists and news (with some UAs), a
separate draft should introduce it officially for both mail
and news.  I don't see the point in a news-only solution.

"Mailed-And-Posted: yes" is like "Killfile-Me: yes" for me,
if the sender does not explicitly mention this in the body.
If he mentions it explicitly, what's the point of the header ?

> I have to remember, for each mailing list I am on, whether
> to use "Reply" or "Reply-To-All", with dire consequences if
> I use the wrong one

Of course I've seen your discussions with Keith, and therefore
I'd send a courtesy copy to him, but he's the one exception in
this universe as far as I'm concerned.   Bruce never asked me
why I don't send any courtesy copies, I never asked him why he
does, so we can apparently manage this "netiquette difference"
without an additional header.  <shrug />

 [FWS-issue, but also relevant for id-left " <at> " id-right]
> A difference in syntax (or a difference in syntactic style)
> is still a difference, even if the eventual outcome is the
> same.

That's true.  But you want the same syntatic style as in 2822
with a different outcome.  That's cheating.  If it really is
different from 2822, then using an apparently identical syntax
is confusing for readers.

Unless it's intentional, as planned for the term "msg-id" (and
the production is obviously different from 2822, no artificial
similarity, only the same name "msg-id")

It's not the same as id-left " <at> " id-right, where I really want
unique " <at> " mdomain, because that's what it is, and it is also
very different from the 2822 syntax for id-left " <at> " id-right.

msg-id = "<" id-left " <at> " id-right ">" would be cheating again,
it's apparently the same line as in 2822, but many details are
"different".  Or rather "better" (towards "correct"), the 2822
concept with its NO-WS-CTL etc. wasn't good enough.  Bye, Frank