Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 12 Jul 1993 00:42:16 +0200 |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Sun,
11 Jul 1993 13:49:22 -0400 from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
< [log in to unmask]> |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jul 1993 13:49:22 -0400 "F. Scott Ophof" <[log in to unmask]>
said:
>OK, it may be USED by mailing lists, but (according to RFC822) not for
>the PURPOSE for which "Revised LISTSERV" uses it.
That is at best controversial, RFC822 is like the Bible, there are people
who spend their life interpreting it to suit their argument. At any rates
RFC822 was written well before there were mailing lists as we know them
today. It doesn't really address the issue of mailing lists, except in
the 'blah:;' syntax which, as you may have noticed, is not really
widespread.
>And besides <OWNER-..@..> and <..-REQUEST@..>, are there any other such
>words that have the same ("guaranteed") behaviour?
There is no standard for mailing lists, thus no guarantee.
>Recently I've seen items from some "Revised LISTSERV"s which have
>"X-List:" headers, and that header-line has up to now consistently
>displayed the relevant and correct list-address itself.
These are not from LISTSERV. At any rate I don't think this is a good
solution, one has to think of mail sent to multiple lists, resent from
list X to list Y, and so on.
Eric
|
|
|