On 11/30/01 2:41 PM, "Vince Sabio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the goal is to uniquely identify a mailing list to the > subscribers, I agree that List-ID: is a good start. And for those servers who haven't upgraded to suppor this, most of the time they'll either support sender: (albeit not necessarily in a permanent/nonchangeable fashion as list-id is hoped to become), or sometimes x-mailing-list. There's usually a header in there you can use reliably for each list, even if it isn't common to all lists. List-id is intended, over time, to make it common to all lists. > However, for > those brane-ded MUAs that cannot filter on headers other than To:, > From:, etc., List-ID: (alone) will not be useful; a quasi-invariant > "standard header" would have to be used. Double-however, how much time and energy should we (as list owners, admins, list server authors, etc) put into supporting non-conforming, brain-dead, broken mail clients? It's not a trivial question, given the two top clients (OE and AOL) both can be classified in this category. But should there be work done to workarounds that allow them to continue to be brain-dead, or should the pressure be to encourage users of those tools to pressure the developers to come into the 18th century with the rest of us?
