Extra Header field

[Joon Radley]

Hi Martin,

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Konold [mailto:martin.konold at erfrakon.de] 
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:58 PM
> To: Joon Radley
> Cc: kolab-format at kolab.org
> Subject: Re: Extra Header field
> 
> Am Montag, 12. Juli 2004 14:40 schrieb Joon Radley:
> 
> Hi Joon,
> 
> > By making the header optional you will have to parse all messages 
> > anyway before you can make the final decision, which 
> totally negates 
> > the purpose of adding the header to the specification in 
> the first place.
> 
> I am afraid that this is the source for the confusion.
> 
> What I want to say: If the header is there it is "the law". 
> If the header is missing do the parsing as before. 
> 
> Doing so does _not_ negate the purpose of the header as it 
> means that if you want to be efficient simply put the header 
> in the message.

In most cases (90%+) the header will be missing (RFC2822), but because the
header is optional in the other 10%, efficiency will be lost as I will have
to parse every message anyway.

By making it the law you can look at the header and decide upfront how to
handle it without parsing the whole mail. Is this not more efficient?

Best regards

Joon Radley
Radley Network Technologies CC
Cell: +27 (0)83 368 8557
Fax: +27 (0)12 998 4346
E-mail: joon at radleys.co.za