-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 2, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I disagree. The identity of a list is what it is, and shouldn't change because the server changes. The issue here arises because in Mailman 2.1, lists have no sense of their own identity<wink>, and rely on their association with a server to derive an identity. So by providing this feature we're not hiding ID to placate the outside world, we're *exposing* ID to improve reliability. While Mark is correct that the RFC says "SHOULD", and so it's optional if tools like Mailman find the implementation painful, I would say this is a MUST for MM3, and deserves consideration as a SHOULD for MM2.2. It's not obvious that it even needs be exposed in the UI for MM2. Moving servers is something that requires intervention by somebody with root access, so command-line configuration is sufficient for MM2, I think. AFAIK there are no tools out there that depend on continuity of List-Id (except user filters, and even those may continue to work by and large if they match on the mailbox rather than the full ID), so I wouldn't call it "urgent", even for MM3.
What I'm saying is that the RFC states "While it is perfectly acceptable for a list identifier to be completely independent of the domain name of the host machine servicing the mailing list, the owner of a mailing list MUST NOT generate list identifiers in any domain namespace for which they do not have authority."
So, if you're moving a list from one domain to another, and you want to keep your old List-ID, you must still control the old domain. If not, then ISTM you MUST change the List-ID. In certain environments, I think you can trust the list admins to get this right, but in others you might trust only the site administrators. So how much control do you give to list admins?
The core question is whether /someone/ should be able to (easily) set the List-ID, and I think we agree the answer to that is "yes". You state that command-line configuration would be fine for MM2, and I agree with that too. :) I still think the posting address makes for a fine default value (well, s/@/./ of course).
Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkmstKQACgkQ2YZpQepbvXHqywCeNXpqA/gFjFnPMyIUbr8ndMJ9 a3gAn2DxEwPge+X6+r/ZI200f/y6GUoq =ZceU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
