Subject: "Recognized" mailing lists, RE: What Meng said

From: "Gordon Fecyk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:53:30 -0500

> > On a separate note, I have heard that EzMLM and YahooGroups
> > lists do not pass the PRA test.
> 
> I believe the Sympa MLM (http://www.sympa.org) doesn't pass it either,

> > The new core draft may benefit from an applicability statement that
> > waives the PRA test for recognized mailing lists.
> 
> Then you have to define "recognized mailing lists", which might be a
> matter for yet another draft.

Wouldn't it be simpler to ask these guys to perform minor changes to their
mailing list software, rather than have to introduce design kluges to work
around them just because they're Yahoo and (whatever)MLM?

/me resisting urge to make snide comments...

-- 
PGP key (0x0AFA039E): <http://www.pan-am.ca/[email-masked]>
Sometimes it's hard to tell where the game ends and where reality bites,
er, begins. <http://vmyths.com/resource.cfm?id=50&page=1>

---

From: Shevek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:43:49 +0100 (BST)

> around them just because they're Yahoo and (whatever)MLM?

So now we're going to ask everyone to rev their DNS servers, their SMTP 
servers, their MUAs and their MLMs, in the middle of which everyone is 
incompatible with everyone else.

I can really see this working.

S.

-- 
Shevek                                    http://www.anarres.org/
I am the Borg.                         http://www.gothnicity.org/

---

From: Mark Shewmaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:36:53 -0400

> I can really see this working.

There are two possible changes:

1.  Yahoo uses a "Mailing List:" header instead of an RFC 2919 
    "List-ID:" Header.  If the PRA algorithm had "List-ID:" between 
    Sender: and From:, then we could ask mailing lists to use RFC 2919 
    headers.

    It's still asking "nonconforming" mailing lists to conform to 
    something we want, but at least it's asking them to conform to an 
    existing standard instead of something we seemingly just made up on 
    the spot (PRA).

    In addition, it will make things easier for their users anyway to 
    have a List-ID header that more and more MUA's recognize for mail 
    sorting.

    So that requires us to change something, (PRA), and them to
    change something (use List-ID).

    (It also means sender_agents would work better. :-)  )

2.  Why is asking mailing lists to use Sender:, (compatible to existing
    PRA) in bad form or unlikely to be effective?

    From RFC 2822:

    |The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
    |message.  The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
    |that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
    |for the writing of the message.  The "Sender:" field specifies the
    |mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
    |message.  For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
    |another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
    |"Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
    |the "From:" field.  If the originator of the message can be indicated
    |by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
    |"Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used.  Otherwise, both fields SHOULD
    |appear.

    We'd just be asking mailing lists to do what 2822 says they SHOULD
    be doing anyway..

-- 
Mark Shewmaker
[email-masked]

---

From: "Michel Bouissou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:49:11 +0200 (CEST)

>     Sender: and From:, then we could ask mailing lists to use RFC 2919

It would be nice as many MLMs that maybe don't use "Sender:" nor
"Resent-From:", do insert a "List-ID:" header.

That would just be a minor addition ;-) to the yet very simple and
straightforward PRA algorithm...

But er... taken from headers of actual mailing-lists that I receive from
different kinds of MLMs...

Some put:
List-ID: <[email-masked]>
...but some put:
List-ID: <somelist.somedomain.com>
Ohoho... And some even put:
List-ID: Long description without quotes or anything <[email-masked]>

Uh... Too bad. The PRA algorithm will really need to be smart ;-)

-- 
Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E

---

From: Mark Shewmaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 03:18:38 -0400

> Uh... Too bad. The PRA algorithm will really need to be smart ;-)

Just look inside the <>'s.  The algorithm would just have to drop any
assumptions that PRAs have to have local-parts.

-- 
Mark Shewmaker
[email-masked]