Re: #231: Considerations for new headers

On 2011-10-11 00:56, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> +1
> ...
>>>    o  Whether the field is a single value, or whether it can be a list
>>>       (delimited by commas; see Section 3.2 of [Part1]).
>> add...: "If it does not use the list syntax, how to treat messages where the header field occurs multiple times (a sensible default would be to ignore the header field, but this may not always be the right choice)."
> ...

-> <>

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 07:38:30 UTC