--On Thursday, 08 September, 2005 16:00 +0100 Tony Finch
<dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, John C Klensin wrote:
Now, for this case, I am personally pretty rigid: if the
mailing list exploder starts messing with (including
inserting) non-envelope (i.e., as things are now defined,
non-trace) headers (or body information), it is performing an
MUA-level function and is hence not an MTA-level exploder at
all. [...]
But 2369 could have been written, or could now be updated, to
designate the List-* headers as trace fields to be inserted
by an MTA-level exploder.
Is 2822bis going to make the set of trace fields extensible so
that this would be possible?
Could that be done? Yes
Would a 2369bis that did it need to update both 2821 and 2822?
Yes
Should it be done? I don't know, but it might be worth further
discussion.
Would there be consensus in the community to do it if a
well-thought-out and complete proposal were developed and
circulated (my comment, quoted above, is obvious neither
well-thought-out nor complete)? I don't know -- I don't even
know how I would feel about it.
If we were to go down this path, would it be time to actually
revise the email model to provide a clean envelope/header
distinction, as outlined in the long-expired
draft-klensin-email-envelope-00? I actually don't think so,
but maybe the point is that this is not the first time we have
started exploring those issues.
john
RFCs 3864 and 4021 would probably
have to be updated so that the IANA registry documents the
trace/non-trace distinction.