On 13 May 1999 19:29:48 -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>For what? String comparisons on the List-ID? The format is unnecessarily
No, for finding or archiving confirmation messages.
>> a standardized format for confirmation messages,
>
>If the MUA is trying to do something fancy like subscribe to a list on
>the user's behalf, obviously it would appreciate knowing when it has to
>reply to complete the subscription, and when the user is subscribed. In
>general, as MUAs learn more and more about mailing lists, there will be
>more and more demand for easy-to-parse header fields in these messages.
It is not trying to do anything on the user's behalf. It is trying to
partially hide the problem of different MLM interfaces from the user.
The user's [main] problem is how to initiate the desired process
without knowing the specific syntax. rfc2369 does that. There is no
need for it to be entirely automatic.
>> It may have been read with a different MUA/computer.
>
>That's a local problem, no more difficult to solve than moving personal
>address books from one MUA to another. Of course, the problem solves
>itself when a new confirmation message shows up.
It's not a problem at all if the individual messages contain the
necessary info.
Assume a subscriber from a new address and MUA mails
[EMAIL PROTECTED] What good does the confirmation
message do him/her? How can the MLM or MUA determine the actual
subscription message without access to a [recent] post from the list?
The problem with standards is that they preclude using everybodies best
solution in favor of a [lower] common denominator. Let's support
rfc2369 as well as possible, while discussing better options.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
