Subject: Re: Issues outstanding

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:43:30 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>(Oddly, I noticed that John Stanley was in favour of Posted-And-Mailed -

Why is this so odd, Charles? I was one of the people who worked on the 
draft that tried to define PAM and MCT. Do you think I would have spent my
time on that were I opposed to them?

>he is quite right, but if Mail- Copies-To has to wait, then
>Posted-And-Mailed must wait too.)

If our task is to document existing practice, and if you were correct in
writing:

>It is still not clear (to me) what the objection to keeping them is, and I
>see no merit at all in #2b (since these headers are in moderately common
>use, and the "experiment" has, in effect, been done).

as Alexy quoted you as saying, then it would be incorrect NOT to include 
them. Are they not "current practice", are they NOT in moderately common 
use, or are we sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the task we
are supposed to accomplish here?

I notice that Alexy did not debate the validitiy of your statement, he 
just decided the issue is closed and we will not document existing 
practice here.