> ..Given that list-request is one of the oldest de facto 'net conventions,
> and given that it appears in RFC ???, I'd suggest that we try
> using it -- I mean REALLY using it, universally and consistently --
> before trying anything else.
>
I agree it should be used universally.
The RFC is 2142 and I have quoted it below for interest.
RFC 2369 suggests using the at least the "List-Help:"
and preferably the "List-Unsubscribe:" headers IN ADDITION
to the use of a list-REQUEST mailbox - the RFC stresses
that it does NOT replace the list-REQUEST mailbox.
These new headers give a URL (usually <mailto:xxxxx>) and
I reckon they would be a tremendously useful uniting force.
Q: Why aren't these new "List-xxx:"headers being implemented
and used much?
Quote from RFC 2142 (common mailbox names)..
6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX Mailing
lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop
requests and other meta-queries can be sent. For a mailing list
whose submission mailbox name is: <LIST@DOMAIN> there
MUST be the administrative mailbox name:
<LIST-REQUEST@DOMAIN> Distribution List management
software, such as MajorDomo and Listserv, also have a single
mailbox name associated with the software on that system --
usually the name of the software -- rather than a particular list
on that system. Use of such mailbox names requires participants
to know the type of list software employed at the site. This is
problematic. Consequently: LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST)
MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED, INDEPENDENT
OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST
SOFTWARE MAILBOX NAMES.
End of quote from RFC 2142.
PS a lovely internet draft laying down all sorts of prescriptions
for IETF mailing lists (eg munging practices etc) is:
draft-moore-maillist-req-01.txt
"Requirements for IETF Mailing Lists"
