Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA22985; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 05:14:52 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 05:14:44 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA22974; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 05:14:39 -0400 From: Message-Id: <199509140914.FAA22974@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <08642-0@domen.uninett.no>; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 11:14:13 +0200 X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95 To: Olle Jarnefors cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, Keith Moore Subject: Re: Another header-munging example..... In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Sep 1995 17:11:56 +0200." <9509131511.AA04174@mercutio.admin.kth.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 11:14:11 +0200 Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no The problem is really with the discussion, not the outcome. All previous efforts at defining what mailing lists should and should not do have come down to a shouting match; since the IETF operates by "rough consensus and running code", and we have code running in all directions on this issue, it is hard to handle by IETF rules. That being said, I think that it is possible to do useful things by defining new 822 headers; I just don't believe that it will be simple to get agreement on them. But if your asbestos suit is suffering from disuse, DO help by writing a proposal to do something! (preferably in the form of a charter/draft pair). BTW, in my "area description" Web pages (http://domen.uninett.no/~hta/ietf/apps /), I've suggested the "header-people" list as an useful place for "general E-mail discussions", after a hint from John. (I'm not on it yet - that's one reason why there's no subscription info on the page....) It's a relatively low-volume, high-competence list according to John. Harald A