Subject: | |
From: | Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA> |
Reply To: | Revised LISTSERV forum <LSTSRV-L@DEARN> |
Date: | Thu, 28 Jan 88 16:43:00 PST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> The other element involved is identifying the list so that the mail can be
> filed properly. The NEWSGROUP: solution can be a way to solve this as well.
I agree with this part; I forgot to include something about this in my
previous posting.
> Mail programs already use SENDER: just because NEWSGROUP: is apparently
> (someone check into this, please) NOT an official standard and its format
> is not formalized.
That's not a usable excuse for misusing SENDER:. If someone has a
problem with NewsGroup:, how about List-Name:? I'm sure we can come
up with some reasonable field name. More difficult is getting people
to have their software use it.
> > NONCONFORMING mailers that do not conform to the requirement to send
> > rejection messages to the Sender if present should be cut off. It
>
> If that's the field we agree on. I can't find in the RFC where it says
> to use this one that way. Can someone cite and RFC/page?
Read section 4.4.2 . I'll save the network load and not quote the
*whole* thing here. But it's perfectly clear to me that what LISTSERV
puts in the SENDER: field is simply not legal according to the first
sentence of 4.4.2 :
This field contains the authenticated identity of the AGENT
(person, system or process) that sends the message.
The listname *IS NOT* the "AGENT that sends the message."
Part of the second paragraph of 4.2.2 that elaborates on my point:
... and not simply include the name of a mailbox
from which the mail was sent.
> I don't have space for that table, I only have a few thousand spare
> cylinders.
I hope everyone realizes that my suggestion wasn't 100% serious...
> They don't implement hardly any of the nice features, either.
Ok, so let's figure out how to implement the nice features *without*
causing other problems.
> It seems in the final analysis that the problem might stem from the
> fact that BITNET is a network that essentially does NOT use SMTP and
> certainly is not using TCP/IP. To make LISTSERV work like lists on
> Arpanet would require implementing SMTP everywhere.
That's the most reasonable answer -- SMTP everywhere.
/Leonard
|
|
|