Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic)
2014-05-06 06:12:44
S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Miles,
At 18:19 05-05-2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I haven't actually dug into the details of how Outlook does things,
but... does not RFC5322's series of resent- headers start to provide
a direction for standardizing mailing list use of header fields?
I read the relevant text as meaning that the "resent-" headers are
added when a message is reintroduced. I prefer to leave it to other
people to interpret what that means. There are a few List- headers
which have been standardized for mailing lists.
Yes, I understand that.
My contention is that:
1. mailing list software performs a relatively stable, well defined, set
of functions (re-distribution, subject tagging, adding headers and
footers, etc.), but,
2. those functions are not performed in a standardized way, and,
3. if those functions we're standardized, a lot of things would become
easier - including, perhaps, improved interoperation of lists with
things like DMARC, better list-aware mail clients
It strikes me that the RFC-5322 resent-headers, which don't seem to be
used much, might be a good starting point for such standardization - for
a start, by getting past the overloading of the From: header that causes
so many problems.
Miles
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), (continued)
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), S Moonesamy
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), Miles Fidelman
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), Ned Freed
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), S Moonesamy
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), Miles Fidelman
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), Russ Allbery
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (on-topic), Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (on-topic), Russ Allbery
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), S Moonesamy
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic),
Miles Fidelman <=
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic), John Levine
- [ietf-822] Aptness of DKIM for MLs, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-822] Aptness of DKIM for MLs, S Moonesamy
- Re: [ietf-822] Aptness of DKIM for MLs, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-822] Aptness of DKIM for MLs, S Moonesamy
- Re: [ietf-822] Aptness of DKIM for MLs, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to..., John Levine
- Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to..., Miles Fidelman
Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to..., Alessandro Vesely
Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to..., Rolf E. Sonneveld
|
|
|