On Nov 02, 2011, at 09:26 AM, William Bagwell wrote:
I happen to like Topics and find them quite usefull. You are correct
however in that they are confusing. The few lists I have been on through
the years that enabled Topics were all social lists with non-technical
users. BTW, these lists
On Nov 10, 2011, at 02:17 PM, C Nulk wrote:
I understand what you are saying. To me Mediator doesn't describe the
same information specifically because it is too general in meaning.
List-Agent as the header makes sense to me.
I'm torn. I see where Patrick is coming from, but I also wonder as
Barry Warsaw writes:
On Nov 10, 2011, at 02:17 PM, C Nulk wrote:
I understand what you are saying. To me Mediator doesn't describe the
same information specifically because it is too general in meaning.
List-Agent as the header makes sense to me.
Mediator generalizes across
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
However, the IETF might want to change it to the opposite name from
the one you pick, or even something else. So you're quite possibly
going to repeat this debate in their forum, so save (some of) your
strength.
Or the posts.
;-)
* Barry Warsaw ba...@list.org:
X-Mailman-Version
The version of Mailman that sent the message. It can lose the X-
prefix.
Modify to: List-Agent, Mediator
Next Step: Discuss
I like List-Agent much more than User-Agent, since Mailman is only tenuously
under any control
On 11/10/2011 12:33 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* Barry Warsaw ba...@list.org:
X-Mailman-Version
The version of Mailman that sent the message. It can lose the X-
prefix.
Modify to: List-Agent, Mediator
Next Step: Discuss
I like List-Agent much more than User-Agent,
On 2 Nov 2011, at 15:06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
X-Topics
This contains a list of all the topic names that matched the message.
Are there any other MLMs that support topics in a way that would make
that
header generally useful?
Modify to: Tag
Next Step: Create RFC
On Nov 02, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Chris Clark wrote:
If a header is going to contain data that is generated from non-trivial
processing I think it would be good form to include the algorithm name in the
header.
The idea behind the header is to enhance RFC 5064 so that the MLM can
pre-calculate
On Nov 02, 2011, at 11:14 AM, C Nulk wrote:
I agree with having a List-Archive-Sent header for when the message is
sent to one (or more archivers). However, I still think there is a need
for the date and time when the List actually receives the message.
I agree, but I think Mailman should be
] Mailman headers roundup
I think the Message-ID to which you refer in the above paragraph is the
Postfix queue ID and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Message-ID:
header or (X-)Message-ID-Hash which is a hash of that header.
Sometimes Message-ID includes the queue ID. That's the case
On Monday 31 October 2011, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Patrick Ben Koetter writes:
X-Topics
This contains a list of all the topic names that matched the
message. Are there any other MLMs that support topics in a way that
would make that header generally useful?
Topics is way too
Thanks for coordinating this Patrick.
On Oct 30, 2011, at 08:04 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
X-List-Received-Date
This only gets added when the message is sent to the archive.
Modify to: List-Archive-Sent
Next Step: Discuss
List-Archive-Sent (maybe with -Date) makes sense
On 11/2/2011 8:06 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Thanks for coordinating this Patrick.
On Oct 30, 2011, at 08:04 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
X-List-Received-Date
This only gets added when the message is sent to the archive.
Modify to: List-Archive-Sent
Next Step: Discuss
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 08:04 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
X-Message-ID-Hash
propose an RFC as an extension of RFC 5064
Modify to: unclear
Next Step: Discuss
As an RFC, obviously we'd drop the X- prefix, but also Hash might be too
vague.
* Barry Warsaw ba...@list.org:
Thanks for coordinating this Patrick.
On Oct 30, 2011, at 08:04 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
X-List-Received-Date
This only gets added when the message is sent to the archive.
Modify to: List-Archive-Sent
Next Step: Discuss
On 11/2/2011 1:31 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* Barry Warsaw ba...@list.org:
Thanks for coordinating this Patrick.
On Oct 30, 2011, at 08:04 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
X-Message-ID-Hash
propose an RFC as an extension of RFC 5064
Modify to: unclear
Next Step: Discuss
I've created a list to sum up the current discussion/threads on the mailman
header work.
The list is separated in four sections:
I. CLARIFY
Needs discussion.
II. MODIFY
Needs to be registered with IETF or changes X- name.
III. KEEP
Do not change
VI. DELETE
Remove from
-Original Message-
From: mailman-developers-bounces+msk=cloudmark@python.org
[mailto:mailman-developers-bounces+msk=cloudmark@python.org] On Behalf Of
Patrick Ben Koetter
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 12:04 PM
To: Mailman Developers
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman
Developers
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers roundup
I've created a list to sum up the current discussion/threads on the mailman
header work.
[...]
Nice!
Thanks.
For the ones that are at Create RFC, does someone have a specific syntax
they should follow, especially
Patrick Ben Koetter writes:
X-Mailman-Approved-At
lose the X-prefix
Modify to: List-Approved-Date
Next Step: Create RFC or Extend RFC 2369?
New RFC. Once you get to the RFC stage, you don't modify them (even
for typos, they publish errata).
X-Topics
This
20 matches
Mail list logo
