Bruce Lilly <ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org> writes:
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
One of the USENET concepts which has translated quite well to mail is
the use of the References: header to thread mails.
The References field was defined in RFC 724 (possibly earlier) which
predated Usenet by years. It was not adopted by Usenet until after
RFC 724 had been superseded by RFCs 733 and 822.
I was refering to the reliable use of message IDs in references field.
UseNet definitely had that 1st (whatever RFCs may have said).
If there was a clearly defined header that said "you got this mail from
the list <whatever(_at_)somewhere>"
You mean something like
Return-Path: <owner-ietf-822(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org>
or
Sender: owner-ietf-822(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
So the answer is no ;-)
There is a choice of two fields there and I doubt that 'owner-'
would be normative in any standard.
Yes my ad. hoc. list scheme does try that...
it would be trivial to add a
"Reply to list" button to a MUA.
Not necessarily. Sometimes there are multiple list expansions.
So - if the name of the _list_ was in a header "reply to list"
would go back to the machine hosting the list and be re-expanded.