Re: MUA Mail Options for a Mailing List [was Re: non-member messages to

Bruce Lilly writes:
> The point is that the fields provided for are optional; therefore in 
> their absence one cannot determine whether a message has been 
> expanded by a list expander (for that matter, although the fields are 
> intended for use by list expanders, one cannot be certain that the 
> presence of any of the fields guarantees that that message has passed 
> through a list expander).
Isn't this intrinsic to all in-message flags? That is, isn't this 
something that no in-message proposal can solve, and that therefore, 
2369/2919 are as good as it gets in-message?
Even if a new header field (or a modification of a current header field) 
made it to Full Standard before Christmas, very little software would 
be aware of the new RFC.
> Moreover and more importantly, as you pointed out a few weeks ago, the 
> provision for such fields does absolutely nothing to identify whether 
> or not a given mailbox (e.g. kde(_at_)freebsd(_dot_)org) might expand to a list 
> when one is composing a message with that mailbox as a recipient; 
> that is precisely the time when an author might want to know that 
> list expansion may be involved so that he can set the Reply-To field 
> to point to that list if he wishes responses to go to that list.
Right.

Arnt