On 8/1/17 2:11 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Jim, > I would like to disagree: > >> On 1 Aug 2017, at 00:02, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Section 5.3, I don't think it's a good idea to define and require new >> message header fields for this. This means that some of the >> general-purpose libraries for sending email messages can't be used. > Do you mean that a general purpose library is unable to add arbitrary header > fields? This doesn't seem to qualify as "general purpose".
"General purpose" was the wrong phrase. My suspicion was that higher-level libraries for easily sending an email message from a program wouldn't necessarily support adding arbitrary email header fields. But I did a bit more research, and the ones I have found do allow addition of arbitrary header fields. > >> A better approach IMO would be to suggest the use of separate email >> addresses (e.g., [email protected] or [email protected] for >> a service provider) in order to distinguish reports from other traffic. > This is already possible. Yes, and for this reason the requirement to add new message header fields seems gratuitous. I expect reports will be separated by destination address rather than using IMAP filters, the latter being given as the motivation for the new header fields. -Jim _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
