Re: Why is Message-ID header in HTTP?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Full-URI, again"
• Previous message: Phillip M. Hallam-Baker: "Re: More KeyedDigest... Re: another Digest Access Authentication question"
• In reply to: Owen Rees: "Why is Message-ID header in HTTP?"

>Message-ID seems to me to be out of place as an HTTP header. I think it should 
>be removed, and if there is any existing use problem that needs to be 
>described, do this in an appendix treating it as an extension-header.

I disagree. There are several instances when it is usefull to be able to specify 
the message-id as a meta item. For example a HTTP server may be a news/mail 
gateway in its own right. A user with an HTTP client needs to be able to 
determine the Message Id used in certain circumstances. 

If we have proxy chains there is a great advantage in being able to index and 
identify messaged by an identifier.

I have always thought that its a pity this field was not made mandatory. 
Especialy for replies.


	Phill

• Next message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Full-URI, again"
• Previous message: Phillip M. Hallam-Baker: "Re: More KeyedDigest... Re: another Digest Access Authentication question"
• In reply to: Owen Rees: "Why is Message-ID header in HTTP?"