On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 10:08:56PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Margarita Manterola ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050623 16:45]:
> > On 6/23/05, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Is there a better solution to this?
> > > I think that there have been proposals for a new header that
> > > accomplishes what you want,
>
> > Well, a new header would be nice, of course. But it would mean a
> > change in policy, that's why I was thinking of using the existing
> > ones.
>
> Frankly speaking, I prefer a new header better than overloading the
> semantic of the existing headers.
Hi Andi,
if the old headers have more than one use case, would it be good to
state what they DO mean and DO NOT mean so that if and when a new
headers is added, it will be clear why you would want to use the new one
and why you SHOULD not use the old one.
Cheers,
Kev
--
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
`$' $'
$ $ _
,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$$$$$b $,d$$b
,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$ggggg$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $ $
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $ $
`Y$$P'$. `Y$$$$P $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
