Extra Header field

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Monday 12 July 2004 17:13, Joon Radley wrote:
> > Then I think that having the annotate format indicating being
> > as strong as possible is good and in rare extra cases (e.g.
> > trash-can recovery) parsing a message twice seems okay for
> > me. Am I missing something here?
>
> Firstly, the extra header does not solve a problem that cannot be solved by
> parsing the whole message.

Fully understood.

> The extra header only makes it much easier. I can decide how to handle a
> message just by looking at the header, without the need to parse the whole
> message first. 

My suggestion was to rely on the mandatory annotate
and accept the extra parsing effort for special cases like the trash-can.
If you hit something in the folder that is not the type as indicated
in annotate, you just ignore that email and possibly  issue a warning 
about the number of ignored emails (see my other email).

> Parsing a big MIME message is resource intensive.
>
> Adding this header to the message will not affect the format or the
> storage, why is it such a problem?

I am not saying it is a big problem, I am just curious about the need.
If we do not need it than I also like to not duplicate information.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2145 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/format/attachments/20040712/68bbec97/attachment.p7s>