Package: mutt
Version: 1.5.17+20080114-1
Severity: normal
I have the following two lines in my ~/.muttrc:
subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
color index yellow default ~l
This should be enought to highlight any mail addressed to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list as yellow but it fails to recognise
certain headers of which a non-exhaustive list follows:
X-Mailing-List
X-Loop
X-Original-To
List-Id
Resent-From
Any one of these can be used to determine the mailing list when the
actual To address is obscured because of a BCC.
I have attached a sample mbox with a message which is missed by the
config sample I have included above.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.20.3-bytemark-uml-2
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages mutt depends on:
ii libc6 2.7-6 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libgdbm3 1.8.3-3 GNU dbm database routines (runtime
ii libgnutls13 2.0.4-1 the GNU TLS library - runtime libr
ii libidn11 1.1-1 GNU libidn library, implementation
ii libncursesw5 5.6+20080105-1 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii libsasl2-2 2.1.22.dfsg1-16 Cyrus SASL - authentication abstra
Versions of packages mutt recommends:
ii exim4-daemon-light [mail-tran 4.68-2 lightweight Exim MTA (v4) daemon
ii locales 2.7-6 GNU C Library: National Language (
ii mime-support 3.39-1 MIME files 'mime.types' & 'mailcap
-- no debconf information
--
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>
"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 01 19:05:01 2008
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:05:01 +0000
Received: from frink.w3.org ([128.30.52.56])
by bytesexual.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1JL1C7-0000UO-7H
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:05:01 +0000
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1JL1BE-0006qo-HJ
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:04:04 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41])
by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1JL1BD-0006qD-Qc
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:04:03 +0000
Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146])
by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1JL1B7-00085l-UM
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:04:03 +0000
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234])
by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m11J5Q9E005023
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:05:26 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217])
by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id
m11J3WmO210862
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:03:32 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id
m11J3Wnb015221
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:03:32 -0500
Received: from internet1.lotus.com (internet1.lotus.com [9.33.9.11])
by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
m11J3Wg9015191
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:03:32 -0500
Received: from wtfmail05.lotus.com (wtfmail05.lotus.com [9.33.9.124])
by internet1.lotus.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m11J3V0t014363
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:03:31 -0500 (EST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: E52CEE93:297F7AA5-852573E2:00679865;
type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:04:22 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL05/WTF/M/Lotus(Release 8.0.1|January
28, 2008) at
02/01/2008 02:04:22 PM,
Serialize complete at 02/01/2008 02:04:22 PM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1JL1B7-00085l-UM 6d95b6634a9551b828254600d49f35b4
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/10319
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
List-Id: <www-tag.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:04:04 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 128.30.52.56
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on bytesexual.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=2.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.2.3
Subject: W3C TAG Questions on Draft #2 of XRI Resolution V 2.0
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:39:36 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on bytesexual.org)
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2772
Lines: 73
I am writing on behalf of the World Wide Web Consortium Technical
Architecture Group (TAG). The purpose of this note is to pose to you some
questions that arose during our discussion of "Committee draft 2 of
Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution Version 2.0" [1]. It is
possible that the TAG would later wish to offer some comments and
suggestions regarding XRI and its relationship to the architecture of the
Web, but first we feel we need to better understand the intended uses of
XRI. We apologise for engaging in reviewing your work so late, and we
hope and trust that you will remain open to further questions and comment
from us as our review progresses.
We would very much appreciate it if you could clarify whether we have read
the XRI Resolution specification correctly in inferring that:
1) All access to resources identified by XRIs
require (at least) two round trips, the
first to retrieve metadata (XRDS, XRD or
uri list) and the second to retrieve
(a representation of) the resource itself?
2) HTTP content negotiation can be used in
requests for XRIs to force either metadata
return or redirection to actual resource
representations?
3) Relative XRIs are of course allowed in the
normal way when a full-form XRI has been
established as the base URI. Are they also
allowed _without_ any full-form XRI as a
base URI? That is, for example, is "=henry"
intended to be recognize as an XRI in the
absence of any base URI? If so, what is
being done to ensure that both now and in
the future, the syntax of such abbreviated
XRIs is coordinated with (I.e. remains
disjoint from) the syntax of both absolute
and relative URIs that might be used in the
same contexts?
Also, could you let us know what steps, if any, you have taken towards
registration of 'xri' as a URI scheme with the IETF?
Thank you very much for your attention to these questions.
(Note that this email has been bcc:'d to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] public mailing
list. bcc: has been used to avoid the problems inherent in email threads
that are cross posted on multiple lists. Please note, however, that
members of the TAG and many members of the community who work with us are
unlikely to monitor responses sent only to the xri-comments list.
Accordingly, if you wish correspondence to be seen by the TAG, we encourge
you to send it to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.)
Noah Mendelsohn
For the World Wide Web Consortium Technical Architecture Group (TAG)
[1]
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/2.0/specs/cd02/xri-resolution-V2.0-cd-02.html
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
