[hashcash] Re: Length of recent X-Hashcash cookies?
- From: Simon Josefsson <jas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hashcash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:06:38 +0100
Adam Back <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> OK in previous discussions I was under the impression that X- is the
> standard way to do it. Sounds like it is? but if it becomes a
> standard/ratified header you can remove the X-.
It used to be the standard way to do it. But it leads to the
backwards compatibility issues you encounter now. So nowadays people
tend to not use X-. RFC 2822 reflect this change in behavior by not
discussing the X- prefix. Sadly, it would be better if 2822 discussed
why X- should not be used. I suspect they didn't want to mention it,
because doing so could lead to endless discussions about the exact
wording...
> In the interests of making that work if that happens at some point I
> will make the next version accept but not generate Hashcash, and
> generate X-Hashcash. That way if at some point it changes, we'll have
> less backwards compatibility issues without having to include the
> header 2x once as X-Hashcash and once as Hashcash.
This sounds like a good first step.
Thanks,
Simon
Other related posts:
