The message I received from "F. Scott Ophof"  said:
...
> If addresses like <listname-REQUEST@..>, <OWNER-listname@..>, or
> (gasp!) <listname-OWNER@..> (as a/the MLM at GreatCircle.com does)
> are indeed implementation-dependant, then they too are effectively
> not too useful as a general case.
 
It occurred to me that none of the above should really be used as
indicators of MLM-generated mail for the simple reason that they
occur on the RHS of a field name.
 
>
> I can accept that MLMs came into general use after standards like
> RFC822 were proposed, with those standards not taking MLMs into
> consideration.  But after all these years, hasn't *any* standard
> been proposed and rammed through *YET*??
>
> If there ain't none, then I'd like to propose that:
>    Listname:  Name of List <listaddr@...>
> be used for this purpose, and for no other purpose.  And that this
> header and its purpose be registered, etc.
 
Yes, that does seem sensible to have, especially considering that
X-List* fields have been floating around for a while now, waiting to
be "adopted".  A small semantic point here, though: just as one
doesn't use a "Sendername:", "Subjectmatter:" or a "Fromname:" field,
it would appear to be more appropriate and consistent (imho) to name
the field "List:".
 
> I don't care whether it would be "Listname:" or "List-Name:", but
> not some "X-whatever:", please.  Ie. I retract my proposal to use
> "X-List:".
>
 
I wonder if the people who started using the X-List* fields (I'm a
little short on history here) have anything in the works for
formalizing a definitive field now.  The SRI-NIC was listed in
RFC822 as the keeper of registered field names.  This might now be
a function of rs.internic.net.
 
>
> Or is:
>    Precendence: group
> a valid form to indicate it's a newsgroup item?  Are there other
> values which are valid here?
>
 
"Precedence:" as I know it is a definite sendmail-ism, and is
site-dependant.  The RHS of this field can be any text defined by the
email administrator, and is translated by sendmail into a number (via
the config file).  This is then used by sendmail to determine whether
to favor or penalize the delivery of this message relative to the
current system load.
 
I most certainly wouldn't rely on it as an indicator of MLM-generated
mail.
 
>
> On 11 Jul 1993 22:42:16 GMT Eric Thomas said on LSTSRV-L:
> >On Sun, 11 Jul 1993 13:49:22 -0400 F. Scott Ophof said:
> >>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.
 
Wouldn't mail sent to multiple lists be taken care of by their respective
MLMs ?  And if a message was resent from list X to list Y, wouldn't it
now be deemed to originate from list Y's MLM (and contain headers
appropriate to list Y) ?.... just asking.
 
The history of the message could, of course, be preserved through the use
of the "Resent-" prefix defined in RFC822 (Section 4.2).
 
...
> Regards.
> $$\
 
__________________________________________________________________
   Ravin Asar                     |  National Science Foundation
   System Manager: Unix Systems   |  1800 G St. NW #440
                                  |  Washington, DC 20550
   Official: [log in to unmask]   |  Phone: (202) 357-5934
   Personal: [log in to unmask]        |    Fax: (202) 357-7663
__________________________________|_______________________________
As always, IMHO.