> A definitive authoritative specification for all variations of the > mbox database format is explicitly not the objective, for several > reasons.
that's fine. I fully support registering application/mbox as a media type. > For > one thing, such a definition is outside the IETF's purview, the same > as a definition for Outlook or Eudora or other vendor/platform-centric > database formats would be. I have to disagree here. Perhaps standardizing mbox would be outside of IETF's purview, but I think it would be valuable for IETF to publish a peer-reviewed Informational description of (1) existing practice for mbox files and (2) recommended practice for reading and writing mbox files. I just don't think that this should be critical path for getting application/mbox registered. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
