Re: User-Agent header

[Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:

> Reiner Steib writes:
>  > On Sun, Feb 24 2008, Leo wrote:
>  > 
>  > > On 2008-02-24 09:05 +0000, Reiner Steib wrote:
>  > >> [BTW, your User-Agent header is not confirming to RFC 2616 or the
>  > >> usefor drafts.]
>
> Of course it's conforming to RFC 2616; RFC 2616 defines HTTP headers,
> not mail headers.  The drafts may define the same format (including by
> reference to RFC 2616), but that's not the same as RFC 2616
> conformance.

I was thinking the same thing :-).

> In particular, the "usefor drafts" may impose additional syntactic
> restrictions or permit extensions (both unlikely) or add semantic
> interpretations.  (In a trivial sense they do the latter two by
> extending use of the header to mail.)

And until this draft is promoted to RFC status, MH-E is still using
X-Mailer (although we could update the format of the header field to
conform with this draft).

Assuming this draft applies to mail header fields.

The draft refers to Usenet header fields in the "context" of RFCs 2822
and 2045; does that imply that this document "extends" RFCs 2822 and
2045?

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD