[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text

2008-01-17 12:00:39

In <fml463$udb$1(_at_)ger(_dot_)gmane(_dot_)org> "Frank Ellermann" 
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:

Charles Lindsey wrote:

there are situations where an existing Sender currently
IS modified, that being regarded as good practice.

The precise number of RFCs discussing to *modify* an
existing Sender header field I'm aware of is zero, what
do you have in mind ?

That is because there is currently no RFC covering best practices for
mailing list expansions (that is a gap that ought to be filled).

Ought to be but is unlikely to happen. This was tried some years back, with
the result that the working group imploded. I've seen nothing to indicate
a general shift of attitudes that would prevent this from playing out the
same way if it were tried again.

But nevertheless, the practice of forcing the address of the mailing list
expander into the Sender header (whether or not such a header was present
before hand) is so widespread that any RFC that might appear in future
would have a hard time it is tried to reverse that convention.

Actually, my observation has been that fashions in this area seem to shift back
and forth over time. RIght now I'm seeing an upswing in the number of lists I'm
on that do this, but this behavior is still a minority taste among the lists I
subscribe to. Before this current upswing there was a period where I observed a
slow drop in the number of lists that do it.

I suspect this is more a result in changed to what list handlers are popular
and their default behavior than it is a shift in attitudes of list managers.
(My guess is most people running lists neither know nor care about this issue
to any significant degree and just accept whatever defaults they are given.)
And while I'm on a lot of lists I cannot claim to have anything resembling
definitive data. Indeed, it hard to even know how to tally this behavior - do
we count lists, list operators (Yahoo Groups hosts a lot of lists), list
managers, or something else?

De Facto, that is the accepted usage, and we have to live with that.

No, what we have to live with is the fact that some lists replace the Sender:
field and others do not. An expectation that it will always happen is every bit
as wrongminded as an expecation that it will never happen.