> From: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:44:48 -0500
>
> On 11 May 1999 00:10:35 -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>
> >Let's say a user clicks the ``unsubscribe'' button while he's looking at
> >an old message from the SOS mailing list. What should the MUA do?
> >
> >RFC 2369 suggests that the MUA follow the List-Unsubscribe instructions
> >in that message. But what happens when the instructions are out of date?
>
> You are arguing against the MUA support as suggested in rfc2369, but
> for the MLM support as suggested in rfc2369. I'm arguing for MLM
> support.
I added RFC2369 support to exmh in about 40 lines of code (plus another 32
lines of comments to include the relevant portion of the RFC). This was the
simple support that Dan argues against.
On my todo list is to have a database of mailing lists which would include the
most recent info about each list in it. However, doing that requires a bunch
of other stuff that isn't there yet and I could never do it in 40 lines.
I like RFC2369 because a minimal useful level of support is *easy*. Good MUAs
will support more, but that's no reason to argue against the minimal level.
As more MUAs support the easy level more lists will support the headers. As
more lists support the headers, more MUAs will support more sophisticated
handling. Right now a total of 3 lists that I get have RFC2369 headers and
two of those are low-volume. If this doesn't increase, it won't matter what
the MUA support is like.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
+1 512 432 4046 4314 Avenue C O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78751-3709
+1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
