william(at)elan.net wrote:
they still are not producing RFC-compliant List-ID....
| List-ID: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
RfC 4021 proposes to check out RfC 2919 for List-ID.
RfC 2919 proposes to replace the "@" by a dot, oops.
Well, at least there's some near miss pseudo-List-ID.
As far as I'm concerned they could ditch the List-ID
and Reply-To using a "proper" (proposed in RfC 2369):
List-Post: <mailto:spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
While they're at it they could also add List-Archive,
because GMaNe uses that to determine the URL of the
"original list archive".
A few X-Posts here and on mxcomp (MARID) in 2004 got
us a bogus archive URL on the page...
<http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss>
...and some confusion between Lars and me. I had
submitted this to GMaNe's manual update procedure,
but it's an automatical extraction of List-Archive.
Maybe I could fake a "correct" List-Archive header
field, but who cares, the proposed update of the
SPF Support page with GMaNe's URLs never made it.
BTW - I think gmane is improperly inserting "Lines"
header field which is not supposed to be used
for email message header
Probably it uses the original INN procedure on the
side of submitted articles. When USEFOR manages to
_publish_ an RfC deprecating "Lines" I might bother
Lars with that.
Until then match "Lines" with <optional-field> in
RfC 2822 section 3.6.8, it's not illegal.
But make sure that "Lines" is not folded at the end.
The syntax for <unstructured> in RfC 2822 is dubious:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.rfc.interest/110>
Bye, Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com