Andreas Herceg wrote:
> OK, I did not know that X-Label is that common. Now I thought
> of just defining 'X-Coprija: coprija'.
>
> Now I would like to know if this would be against some standard
> which I do not know.
Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
> my understanding is that X headers are pretty much up for
> grabs.
>
> i say if someone's going to be retarded about you using
> 'X-Label', screw 'em. it's their problem, not yours (and they
> can easily edit your message in mutt and remove the offending
> header, or they can strip it out with procmail if it really
> bothers them that much).
I tend to agree with Will, (even if I don't share his somewhat
confrontational attitude.) Header feilds are meant to be useful
and informative; although, I sometimes think that some users let
them get a bit out of hand. In any case, relying on a
user-defined-field for any significant purpose is a bit
fool-hardy.
An excerpt from RFC #822 "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages":
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
4.7.5 USER-DEFINED-FIELD
Individual users of network mail are free to define and
use additional header fields. Such fields must have
names which are not already used in the current
specification or in any definitions of
extension-fields, and the overall syntax of these
user-defined-fields must conform to this
specification's rules for delimiting and folding
fields. Due to the extension-field publishing process,
the name of a user-defined-field may be pre-empted
Note: The prefatory string "X-" will never be used in
the names of Extension-fields. This provides
user-defined fields with a protected set of names.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
-- Mr. Wade
--
Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX.
