From: "Brad Knowles" <BKnowles@aol.net>
Message-Id: <970120211129.ZM18750@chrome.office.aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:11:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
        "Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.txt" (Jan 19,  7:15pm)
References: <v03101201af08765a2f34@resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: KnowlesB@aol.net
Organization: America Online, Inc.
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.txt
Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jan 19,  7:15pm, Pete Resnick wrote:

> To this point, I fully agree with Keith. If there is anyone out there other
> than Dan who thinks Keith is incorrect, please speak up. In fact, if there
> are others who agree with Keith, a quick note would be of use too. I
> believe all of the argument is on the table and a reasonable person can
> make a decision without continuing this exceedingly long (and as usual
> uncivil) thread any longer.

    I'm with Keith -- anyone can screw up either envelope or header,
and there are cases where information should be encoded as envelope
but has historically been put into the header, but we don't need
to continue to condone this practice nor do we want to allow any
kind of attempt to (further) codify it.

    We do need a central header registry to keep things from getting
worse than they already are.

-- 
Brad Knowles                                MIME/PGP: KnowlesB@aol.net
    Senior Internet Mail Systems           <http://www.his.com/~brad/>
    Administrator for America Online, Inc.
<http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE38CCEF1>