On Fri, 16 Jul 1993 08:21:44 -0800 (PDT) Alan Millar said:
>Verily didst F. Scott Ophof rise up and spake thus:
>...
>> According to this alternative, it *should* be a function of MUAs to
>> add this header when the user indicates "post this", and leave it
>> out when the user says "administrative stuff".
>Getting new features or functionality into an MUA is going to be
>significantly harder than getting them into an MLM.  There are
>  [...]                      This might almost imply that the
>reserved list Header: would have to be optional, but that may
>defeat much of its usefulness.
 
Of course adding such would take some time on the whole network.
*IF* such were implemented, there would have to be an intro period,
of course.  But that's moot after what you say below.
 
>> Implementation of this alternative means that an item mailed to the
>> submit-to-list-addr withOUT that header would have the same result
>> as any item currently mailed to the administrative address (which
>> is normally of the form <OWNER-listname@..>, <listname-REQUEST@..>,
>> <listname-OWNER@..>, or <LISTSERV@..>).
>This would definitely be bad for all those sites that can't support
>the new header item.  All messages intended for list submission
>would go to the administrative program and be rejected.
 
(OOPS!)  Dead center, Alan.  'Twas too good to be true...
Anything salvageable?  And how about the original suggestion?
 
Regards.
$$\