>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use > of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name" > token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those > protocols. > >So, X headers are still the way to go it seems for SMTP..
Perhaps you missed this part of RFC 6648: As explained more fully under Appendix A, this convention was encouraged for many years in application protocols such as file transfer, email, and the World Wide Web. In particular, it was codified for email by [RFC822] (via the distinction between "Extension-fields" and "user-defined-fields"), but then removed by [RFC2822] based on implementation and deployment experience. Really, if you need to invent a header, just invent one and don't pretend that anyone told you to use a X- name. R's, John _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
