Subject: Re: New UseFor headers (was Re: Document definitions)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:16:22 +0100

Bill Davidsen wrote:

>>> Complaints-To is arguably useful but isn't fully baked; it's a
>>> standardization of an existing header that someone thought was a good
>>> idea, but whose effectiveness is a bit dubious.  I could, for instance,
>>> make a strong argument that its contents should be a URL, not an e-mail
>>> address.
>>
>> <chair hat off>
>> There was a proposal to merge it with Injection-Info, which is fine 
>> with me. If this happens, I withdraw my voice in favor of using URLs 
>> (i.e. I am fine with using the email address syntax for "complain" 
>> parameter inside the Injection-Info header.
>> </chair hat off>
>
> It's quite widely used now, I suggest that we have it written and it's 
> current practice, there are more contentious things we should settle.

If the WG wants to standardize Complaints-To as is, this is fine with 
me. In which case the description of Complaints-To header can be in the 
USEFOR document.
But the document should be clear that Complaints-To is already deployed 
and the document doesn't make any attempts to extend or fix (if fixing 
is required) it.

Alexey