I'm pretty strongly opposed to content-free headers (e.g. "MIME-Version:
1.0"); my faq posting seems to get 14 headers at the moment (including
Sender, Originator, etc) and one could argue that only about 5 of its headers
carry meaning (Newsgroups, Subject, From, Date, Expires). I don't think
my file is "controversial" and I don't see why this sort of disclaimer is
necessary or helpful in my case.
I can see your wanting this header on some controversial faq files.
I don't see any reason to put it on mine. I propose to add a disclaimer
to my own faq posting some time AFTER the first complaint, not before.
It's not broke; I propose not to fix it.
>if it were universal, it would make it that much easier to
>handle "controversial" FAQs since we wouldn't have to single anyone out.
If it were common although far from universal, I don't see that it would
be such an insult for you to request it on particular faqs, especially
during the initial header-approval process.
just my opinion,
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved