On Dec 7, 2016 9:27 AM, "Jim Popovitch" <jim...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >>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. So you can choose any name you want as long as it doesn't start with X- ? :-) I'm going to start naming headers XY- just because it's allowed by RFCs. http://m.imgur.com/gallery/mSHi8 Brando
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
