Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:24 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:

So the question really goes to the mailman people: can we get an
option to make the prefix inclusion a subscriber option?
I confess to being more than a little perplexed as to why you and others think
this idea in and of itself is a useful solution to anything.


If having it be a per-subscriber option (off by default) would aid migration to a world where subject tags are not commonplace and therefore not widely expected, that might be worth it. Maybe having them off by default will encourage more use of List-ID.

+1

One way to view this is to focus on the central issue and why/when the subject tag was useful:

       The need for Discussion Groups separations

But why did this occur?

Before Offline MUA became prevalent, online group ware conferencing provided the separation and it was the dominant user types. Off hand, there were at least five different user types or access points:

USER1: Online (console, web, gui) portals, folders separations available USER2: Offline w/ Online access to folders using non IETF method (i.e. Exchange) USER3: Offline w/ Online access to folders using IETF IMAP standard method USER4: Offline w/ Online access to folders using IETF NNTP standard method USER5: Offline using IETF POP3 Standard but with no inherent folder separations

So pre 2001 USER5 who may not have a MUA with support for RFC2919 (List-ID) or flexibility to add new headers, needed a help using an undesirable mail tampering idea - subject list tags.

But today, RFC 2919 is widely adopted, MUA are more flexible and DKIM is also adding new pressures to avoid using this Subject List tag kludge.

So if the central issue is separation, we now have three IETF Methods for offline users to achieve this - IMAP, NNTP and LIST-ID sorting, and a new DKIM standard that this kludge conflicts with.

--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Reply via email to