Subject: Re: Re: Re: Sv: Ant: Sv: Re:
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:01:40 GMT
Newsgroups: local.mime
List-Id: <ietf-822.imc.org>

In <[email-masked]> "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]> writes:

>In <[email-masked]> Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]> writes:

>>"SHOULD take ["Re: "} into account" and "continue to use ['Re; '] MUST do"
>>contradict the meaning of "deprecate".  Of course, contrary to your earlier
>>indication, that text in no way deprecates use of "Re: ".

>As I said earlier, I do not want to indulge in religious arguments
>regarding the precise meaning of "deprecate". If you want to insist (in
>USEAGE) that agents SHOULD NOT place any special interpretation on "Re: "
>when they encounter it (which is text #2), then you are not going to get
>a consensus in this WG.

My apologies. That message was sent to the wrong list (for reasons
unexplained).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.mime:3117
Newsgroups: local.mime
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: =?utf-8*la*?q?Re:_?= Re: Sv: Ant: Sv: Re:
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:16:18 GMT
Lines: 22
Sender: [email-masked]

In <[email-masked]> Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]> writes:

>"SHOULD take ["Re: "} into account" and "continue to use ['Re; '] MUST do"
>contradict the meaning of "deprecate".  Of course, contrary to your earlier
>indication, that text in no way deprecates use of "Re: ".

As I said earlier, I do not want to indulge in religious arguments
regarding the precise meaning of "deprecate". If you want to insist (in
USEAGE) that agents SHOULD NOT place any special interpretation on "Re: "
when they encounter it (which is text #2), then you are not going to get
a consensus in this WG.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

To: [email-masked]
From: Philip Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: SMTP implementations omitting Seconds in the Received time-stamp
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:49:33 -0500
Lines: 22
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

I'm a member of the ASRG's Filtering sub-group, and we are considering 
implementing a header that references the timestamp recorded in the Received 
headers of a message. We want to use knowledge of the exact value of this 
timestamp to authenticate that a filtering header was added after a 
particular Received header. However, it has come to our attention that 
RFC2822 permits the omission of seconds from this timestamp [1]. This 
presents a slight, but not discountable, forgery risk.

Therefore, I'd like to ask if anyone here knows of any SMTP server 
implementation that does not include seconds in the trace field.
Please forward this to any other person or list who would be (more?) 
qualified to answer. I will collect and report any affirmative responses 
here and in the filtering group.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Philip Miller

[1] http://asg.web.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc2822.html#sec-3.3
The relevant BNF line is:
time-of-day = hour ":" minute [ ":" second ]

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:16:36 -0500
From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
To: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: why spamassassin sucks
Sender: [email-masked]

followup:

They claim that these problems are already fixed in the development
version.  I still don't trust SA, but I do appreciate the fast response.

Keith

--
Power corrupts; Powerpoint corrupts absolutely. 	- Vint Cerf

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:42:21 -0500
From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: why spamassassin sucks
Sender: [email-masked]

People are often asking me why I think spamassassin sucks.  Here's an example 
of a perfectly valid email that it blocks.  The email is a weekly Numerical
Analysis Digest list that uses the group syntax in the To address. 

BTW, here are the full headers of the subject message as I received it.
The space between : and ; was added by sendmail somewhere in the path.
It's such a common sendmail bug that there's no way to eradicate it, but
it shouldn't matter as it's still valid group syntax.

There is no URL in the TO address.  There are spaces in the To field, but 
not within an address - it's perfectly valid syntax to have space between
the : and ; in group syntax, or within a group name.  Satan only knows why
this message failed the OPT_HEADER test.

Keith

(begin headers)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:47:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Cleve Moler <[email-masked]>
To: na-digest list: ;
Subject: NA Digest, V. 04, # 13
Reply-To: [email-masked]
(end headers)

Keith

Begin forwarded message (names of the innocent redacted):

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 02:05:55 -0500 (EST)
From: XXX
To: [email-masked], XXX 
Subject: Re: NA Digest, V. 04, # 13 (fwd)

Hi, Keith and XXX -- I've heard this from several
people now.  -- XXX

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:14:04 -0800
From: XXX
To: XXX
Subject: Re: NA Digest, V. 04, # 13

XXX et al, the local spam filter has been filtering
out my na-net news for a few weeks now.  It looks
like you could avoid the filter by giving the list
a name that doesn't contain spaces.

Cheers,

- XXX

> From XXX Sun Mar 28 07:01:26 2004
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:47:19 -0500 (EST)
> From: XXX
> To: na-digest list:;
> Subject: NA Digest, V. 04, # 13
> X-UCE-Filter-Settings: XXX redirected to 90_OPT_OUT
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.37
> X-Scanned-By: IEEE UCE Filtering Service
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on stamps.cs.ucsb.edu
> X-Spam-Level: *****
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,
> 	OPT_HEADER,TO_HAS_SPACES autolearn=no version=2.63
> X-Spam-Report:
> 	*  2.4 TO_HAS_SPACES To: address contains spaces
> 	*  1.1 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR URI: Includes a link to a likely spammer email
> 	*  2.4 OPT_HEADER Headers include an "opt"ed phrase
> 	*  0.0 AWL AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment

To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.mime:3116
Newsgroups: local.mime
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Multi-message reply and "References:"
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:22:02 GMT
Lines: 71
Sender: [email-masked]

In <p06020400bc7cd1043481@[130.237.157.77]> Jacob Palme <[email-masked]> writes:

>Sorry if this reply is somewhat dated, I am reading this mailing
>list with a :-) slight (-: time delay.

>At 06.11 +0000 03-06-07, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>>RFC 2822 is incorrect when it suggests that References has all of the
>>message's ancestors. What References actually has is the start of the
>>thread, followed by the most recent ancestors, ending with the parent.
>>Ancient ancestors other than the start of the thread are often missing.

>I remember that I pointed this out when RFC 2822 was
>developed. Other people then said, that although they knew
>this was done, they did not like it, and therefore did not
>want it mentioned in the standards document.

>Maybe this practice of omitting middle Message-IDs, but
>always keeping the first and the last two or three, could
>be mentioned in a revised RFC 2822 in chapter "4. Obsolete
>Syntax", in the description of "obs-references". That
>chapter is meant to describe syntax which occurs but which
>is not recommended. It could also contain a description of
>practice which is not recommended.

In Netnews, the GNKSA suggests keeping only the last three.

However, USEFOR has taken the view that you should keep the first and the
last 20. That will probably go in the Current Practices document rather
than in the standard itself.

However, now that this topic is opened again, I would like to revisit the
original topic of this thread, namely Multi-message reply and
"References:". I said nothing on this thread at the time, because my
subscription to this list was all screwed up following an address change.

ISTM that the fundamental property required of the References header is
that messages should be placed later in the list than any message which is
a precursor of it (note that in the usual case, where the thread is a pure
tree, that is exactly equivalent to the present rule). Replying
simultaneously to two messages and adding them both to the end of the
References chain (in either order) would achieve that property.

Now when it comes to presenting the messages in a MUA, one needs the same
property, so that you will not try to read a message until you have read
all of its precursors. So it should be possible to get that effect if the
References header is constructed as I have suggested.

What may be more difficult is to reconstruct the whole graph (strictly a
DAG) from such References headers, but the question is whether it is
really necessary to do that in order to provide an adequate presentation.

Some solutions which were being propounded the last time this came up
involved additional syntax in the References header which it would be
difficult to introduce on the existing network. A solution which sticks
with the present syntax but slightly extends the semantics would have a much
better chance of smooth deployment.

This topic is also under discussion on the Usefor list - not that Usefor
has any declared intention of introducing a change at this time, but it
might if there was a simple solution that had a broad consensus.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:54:28 +0100
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
From: Jacob Palme <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Multi-message reply and "References:"
Cc: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

Sorry if this reply is somewhat dated, I am reading this mailing
list with a :-) slight (-: time delay.

At 06.11 +0000 03-06-07, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>RFC 2822 is incorrect when it suggests that References has all of the
>message's ancestors. What References actually has is the start of the
>thread, followed by the most recent ancestors, ending with the parent.
>Ancient ancestors other than the start of the thread are often missing.

I remember that I pointed this out when RFC 2822 was
developed. Other people then said, that although they knew
this was done, they did not like it, and therefore did not
want it mentioned in the standards document.

Maybe this practice of omitting middle Message-IDs, but
always keeping the first and the last two or three, could
be mentioned in a revised RFC 2822 in chapter "4. Obsolete
Syntax", in the description of "obs-references". That
chapter is meant to describe syntax which occurs but which
is not recommended. It could also contain a description of
practice which is not recommended.

Since the people who wrote RFC 2822 did not want this to be
described, they obviously were of the opinion that if a
thread is 200 or 1000 messages long, all of them should be
included in the references field!
-- 
Jacob Palme <[email-masked]> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:56:33 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Microsoft Patent - Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]

Folks,

TK> My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to remember at least one,
TK> likely more systems in the early 90's that did this.   Lotus cc:Mail, Notes,

Most or all of the LAN-based email products, including cc:Mail, were
based on a central, shared message store.  This was latter 1980's.

As noted, other systems like DEC's all-in-one also saved on storage by
sharing central message copies.

As for Nick's reference to Notes's mid 1980's use of inter-document
dynamic links, SRI's NLS system had them operational no later than 1972,
but probably more like 1966.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:48:02 +0100
From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Patent - Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
To: Tim Kehres <[email-masked]>
Cc: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>, Hector Santos <[email-masked]>, Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Reply-to: [email-masked]
Organization: Sonnection B.V.
Sender: [email-masked]

Tim Kehres wrote:

>My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to remember at least one,
>likely more systems in the early 90's that did this.   Lotus cc:Mail, Notes,
>and possibly a system by Oracle of the time.   Unfortunately it has been too
>long to remember details, but perhaps someone who was internal to these
>organizations may be able to shed a bit more light on the subject.
>  
>

All-In-1 (from Digital Equipment Corporation) is another example that 
has been around as of the late 80's which did this. IMHO M$ can't claim 
it has invented this, but maybe they are the first to patent it?

/rolf

To: "Tim Kehres" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], "Nathaniel Borenstein" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Patent - Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
From: Nick Shelness <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:20:34 +0000
Sender: [email-masked]

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0064893880256E54_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Tim,

> My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to remember at least one,
> likely more systems in the early 90's that did this.   Lotus cc:Mail, 
Notes,
> and possibly a system by Oracle of the time. 

The concept of invokable hyperlinks (long before Tim dreamt up URLs) in 
email (and in any other Notes document) to another Notes document (or 
collection of Notes documents) was a key feature of Lotus Notes from day 1 
(in the mid 1980s). 

Nick Shelness

For this purpose, ex-CTO of Lotus (1998-2001)

--=_alternative 0064893880256E54_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

<br><font size=2><tt>Tim,</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>&gt; My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem
to remember at least one,<br>
&gt; likely more systems in the early 90's that did this. &nbsp; Lotus
cc:Mail, Notes,<br>
&gt; and possibly a system by Oracle of the time. &nbsp; </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif">The concept of invokable hyperlinks
(long before Tim dreamt up URLs) in email (and in any other Notes document)
to another Notes document (or collection of Notes documents) was a key
feature of Lotus Notes from day 1 (in the mid 1980s). </font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><br>
Nick Shelness<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif">For this purpose, ex-CTO of
Lotus (1998-2001)<br>
</font>
--=_alternative 0064893880256E54_=--

From: "Tim Kehres" <[email-masked]>
To: "Nathaniel Borenstein" <[email-masked]>, "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Patent - Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:11:30 +0800
Sender: [email-masked]

My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to remember at least one,
likely more systems in the early 90's that did this.   Lotus cc:Mail, Notes,
and possibly a system by Oracle of the time.   Unfortunately it has been too
long to remember details, but perhaps someone who was internal to these
organizations may be able to shed a bit more light on the subject.

Best Regards,

-- Tim

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nathaniel Borenstein" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Patent - Re: New Internet Draft:
draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

>
> Actually, if all the claims follow the abstract and refer to
> "electronic messaging" rather than email, then I would think netnews
> *itself* is prior art that should be reasonably easy to document!  -- 
> NB
>
> On Mar 10, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>
> >
> > Martin,   I think Microsoft just patent this.
> >
> > Ridiculous!
> >
> >
> > United States Patent 6,704,772
> > Ahmed ,   et al. March 9, 2004
> >
> > Thread based email
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> > Systems and methods for providing electronic messaging services to
> > multiple
> > users by storing a single copy of an electronic message at a central
> > location and notifying recipients of the stored single copy. An
> > electronic
> > message includes a distribution list and a message content. A
> > distribution
> > list identifying multiple recipients causes prior art systems to
> > duplicate
> > the entire message for each recipient, placing potentially large
> > demands on
> > both processing power and storage space. In contrast, the systems and
> > methods disclosed herein store a single copy or a limited number of
> > copies
> > of an electronic message addressed to multiple recipients and provide
> > each
> > recipient with a relatively small notification. In addition to
> > providing
> > information regarding content and origin, the notification also
> > provides
> > access to the stored message. Furthermore, the methods and systems
> > also aid
> > in organizing replies to electronic messages. Replies are associated
> > with an
> > initial message through a message identifier. The association helps to
> > organize electronic messages by subject and provides context without
> > requiring an author to duplicate the content of the initial message
> > with the
> > reply.
> >
> > Inventors: Ahmed; Muhammad A. (Seattle, WA); Alam; Mohammad Shabbir
> > (Bellevue, WA)
> > Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
> > Appl. No.: 399417
> > Filed: September 20, 1999
> >
> >
> > PS:  I don't know about others but this was already prior art on our
> > product
> > where we used email distribution into a single mssage folder for
> > multiple
> > user participation.  This is used everyday for our technical support
> > staff
> > as one example.   Nothing elegant about this.  A EMAIL <---> NEWS
> > interface!
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
> > http://www.santronics.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:13 PM
> > Subject: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Dear email specialists,
> >>
> >> I have recently submitted a proposal for a new email header,
> >> the Archived-At header. You can find it at
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
> >>
> >> It defines a new email header, Archived-At:, to provide a direct
> >> link to the archived form of an individual mail message. We use
> >> this extremely successfully (currently in the form X-Archived-At)
> >> at W3C.
> >>
> >> I would highly appreciate any feedback and comments on this proposal.
> >> Please make sure you copy me, as I'm not subscribed to this list.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,    Martin.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Cc: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Patent - Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:24:27 -0500
To: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

Actually, if all the claims follow the abstract and refer to 
"electronic messaging" rather than email, then I would think netnews 
*itself* is prior art that should be reasonably easy to document!  -- 
NB

On Mar 10, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Hector Santos wrote:

>
> Martin,   I think Microsoft just patent this.
>
> Ridiculous!
>
>
> United States Patent 6,704,772
> Ahmed ,   et al. March 9, 2004
>
> Thread based email
>
> Abstract
>
> Systems and methods for providing electronic messaging services to 
> multiple
> users by storing a single copy of an electronic message at a central
> location and notifying recipients of the stored single copy. An 
> electronic
> message includes a distribution list and a message content. A 
> distribution
> list identifying multiple recipients causes prior art systems to 
> duplicate
> the entire message for each recipient, placing potentially large 
> demands on
> both processing power and storage space. In contrast, the systems and
> methods disclosed herein store a single copy or a limited number of 
> copies
> of an electronic message addressed to multiple recipients and provide 
> each
> recipient with a relatively small notification. In addition to 
> providing
> information regarding content and origin, the notification also 
> provides
> access to the stored message. Furthermore, the methods and systems 
> also aid
> in organizing replies to electronic messages. Replies are associated 
> with an
> initial message through a message identifier. The association helps to
> organize electronic messages by subject and provides context without
> requiring an author to duplicate the content of the initial message 
> with the
> reply.
>
> Inventors: Ahmed; Muhammad A. (Seattle, WA); Alam; Mohammad Shabbir
> (Bellevue, WA)
> Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
> Appl. No.: 399417
> Filed: September 20, 1999
>
>
> PS:  I don't know about others but this was already prior art on our 
> product
> where we used email distribution into a single mssage folder for 
> multiple
> user participation.  This is used everyday for our technical support 
> staff
> as one example.   Nothing elegant about this.  A EMAIL <---> NEWS 
> interface!
>
>
> -- 
> Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
> http://www.santronics.com
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:13 PM
> Subject: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
>
>
>>
>> Dear email specialists,
>>
>> I have recently submitted a proposal for a new email header,
>> the Archived-At header. You can find it at
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
>>
>> It defines a new email header, Archived-At:, to provide a direct
>> link to the archived form of an individual mail message. We use
>> this extremely successfully (currently in the form X-Archived-At)
>> at W3C.
>>
>> I would highly appreciate any feedback and comments on this proposal.
>> Please make sure you copy me, as I'm not subscribed to this list.
>>
>>
>> Regards,    Martin.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Microsoft Patent - Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:00:49 -0500
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc
Sender: [email-masked]

Martin,   I think Microsoft just patent this.

Ridiculous!

United States Patent 6,704,772
Ahmed ,   et al. March 9, 2004

Thread based email

Abstract

Systems and methods for providing electronic messaging services to multiple
users by storing a single copy of an electronic message at a central
location and notifying recipients of the stored single copy. An electronic
message includes a distribution list and a message content. A distribution
list identifying multiple recipients causes prior art systems to duplicate
the entire message for each recipient, placing potentially large demands on
both processing power and storage space. In contrast, the systems and
methods disclosed herein store a single copy or a limited number of copies
of an electronic message addressed to multiple recipients and provide each
recipient with a relatively small notification. In addition to providing
information regarding content and origin, the notification also provides
access to the stored message. Furthermore, the methods and systems also aid
in organizing replies to electronic messages. Replies are associated with an
initial message through a message identifier. The association helps to
organize electronic messages by subject and provides context without
requiring an author to duplicate the content of the initial message with the
reply.

Inventors: Ahmed; Muhammad A. (Seattle, WA); Alam; Mohammad Shabbir
(Bellevue, WA)
Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Appl. No.: 399417
Filed: September 20, 1999

PS:  I don't know about others but this was already prior art on our product
where we used email distribution into a single mssage folder for multiple
user participation.  This is used everyday for our technical support staff
as one example.   Nothing elegant about this.  A EMAIL <---> NEWS interface!

-- 
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:13 PM
Subject: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

>
> Dear email specialists,
>
> I have recently submitted a proposal for a new email header,
> the Archived-At header. You can find it at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
>
> It defines a new email header, Archived-At:, to provide a direct
> link to the archived form of an individual mail message. We use
> this extremely successfully (currently in the form X-Archived-At)
> at W3C.
>
> I would highly appreciate any feedback and comments on this proposal.
> Please make sure you copy me, as I'm not subscribed to this list.
>
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
>