> > A definitive authoritative specification for all variations of the > > mbox database format is explicitly not the objective, for several > > reasons. > that's fine. I fully support registering application/mbox as a media > type. > > For > > one thing, such a definition is outside the IETF's purview, the same > > as a definition for Outlook or Eudora or other vendor/platform-centric > > database formats would be. > I have to disagree here. Perhaps standardizing mbox would be outside > of IETF's purview, but I think it would be valuable for IETF to publish > a peer-reviewed Informational description of (1) existing practice for > mbox files and (2) recommended practice for reading and writing mbox > files. I just don't think that this should be critical path for getting > application/mbox registered. I agree. Such a specification shouldn't be a requirement for this registration, but an informational document would be a nice thing to have. Whether or not sufficient energy exists to get it done is another matter - a similar informational document on the many variations of uuencode has been on my to-do for well over a decade now, and I don't see myself getting to it any time soon... Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf