Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA04936; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 11:56:13 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 11:56:11 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from nameserver.utcc.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA04908; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 11:56:06 -0400 Received: from ester.dsv.su.se by nameserver.utcc.utk.edu (4.1/2.8s-UTK.UTCC) id AA12309; Tue, 12 Sep 95 11:53:19 EDT X400-Received: by /PRMD=SUNET/ADMD=_/C=SE/; Relayed; 12 Sep 95 17:31:22+0200 Date: 12 Sep 95 17:31:22+0200 From: "Jacob Palme DSV-SU/KTH" Message-Id: <1118048*jpalme@su-kom.dsv.su.se> References: <199509111827.OAA13208@wilma.cs.utk.edu> To: ietf-drums Subject: Mailing list handling in ietf-drums work Keith Moore writes: > Briefly: extensions to 822 to better support mailing lists are not > in our charter. At most, we can "fix" the existing support in 822 > that appears to be broken (like Resent-*). > > + clarifying the existing 822 language about how "text message > teleconferencing" (see section 4.4.3) servers can use existing 822 > fields like Resent-* and Reply-to It may be troublesome to define some, but not all of the standards for how a mailing list expander should work. My suggestion is that the communication between a user and a listserver, to subscribe, unsubscribe etc. is clearly out of the scope of the ietf-drums group. Which address to use if you want to communicate with a list server (list-request@host or listserv@host or listproc@host) is probably also out of scope, even though it would be very useful if this was standardised. In the matter of how a mailing list expander should work, there are two main ideologies. (a) The non-interventionist ideology: Do as little as possible, just change the SMTP-SENDER to the list manager and the SMTP-RECIPIENT to the list members and add something to the "Received" header lines and nothing more. (b) The interventionist ideology: Re-munge the headers completely, so as to remove everything which any silly mailer may use in the wrong way, and modify everything else so that as many mailers as possible will react correctly, for example sending replies to the list etc. We will never get the proponents of these two ideologies to agree. Simply because for some members of the list, (a) is best (those who have competent mailers and competent users) while for other members, (b) is best (those who have silly mailers and users not very competent on e-mail handling).