I received 3 copies of the body of this item.  The headers were
slightly different, and only in one case could I to some extent
identify the list-address using what I feel are normal/obvious
headers.
Here follow all three sets, though I've taken the liberty of
leaving in only those headers which are relevant to an item.
(I couldn't care less about "Received:", "X-...:", "Lines:",
"Phone:", etc.  Note that "Prece[n]dence:" doesn't tell me anything,
so I've instructed my mailreader to delete it also.
Note also that in some cases the address-casing in the "Cc:" line
is not the same as in the other(s).
 
| Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
| To: "F. Scott Ophof" <[log in to unmask]>
| From: "Ravin Asar" <[log in to unmask]>
| Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
|         [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
|         [log in to unmask]
| Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
| In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400.
|              <[log in to unmask]>
| Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT
| Sender: [log in to unmask]
| Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in <[log in to unmask]>
 
| Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
| To: "F. Scott Ophof" <[log in to unmask]>
| From: "Ravin Asar" <[log in to unmask]>
| Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
|         [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
|         [log in to unmask]
| Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in <[log in to unmask]>
| Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
| In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400.
|              <[log in to unmask]>
| Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT
| Sender: [log in to unmask]
 
| Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
| To: "F. Scott Ophof" <[log in to unmask]>
| From: "Ravin Asar" <[log in to unmask]>
| Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
|         [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
|         [log in to unmask]
| Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in <[log in to unmask]>
| Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
| In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400.
|              <[log in to unmask]>
| Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT
| Sender: [log in to unmask]
 
The ONLY item which has a header displaying anything which could
imply it's coming from a list is the second one, and even there it's
of the <listname-OWNER@..> variety.
All three I found in my mailbox, and none show the always clearly
recognizable "Revised LISTSERV" setup, so none were from LSTSRV-L or
comp.mail.misc.
The second one says <List-Managers-Owner@...> in the "Sender:" line,
so it's probably from <[log in to unmask]>.
So which of the others comes from ListNix, which from Unix-Listserv?
Or did you send me one directly, Ravin?  In other words, could I be
missing one?
And no, Ravin, none of these Unix MLMs seems to have the "Reply-To:"
set to the equiv. of "ignore poster, use list-addr-only".  I don't
even think it's possible in those MLMs.
 
 
On Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT Ravin Asar said:
>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.
 
Come again?  You mean the <submit-to-list-address> should be on the
LEFT-hand side, ie. it should be the field-NAME?  I misunderstand
you, right?
 
 
>> 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:".
 
Agreed re semantics.  From the same point of view I'd almost suggest
to request that "Newsgroup:" be shortened to simply "News:".  ;-)
 
 
>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.
 
My experience with SRI-NIC (and now its successor) is less than
phenomenal, so anyone who knows the magic incantations needed to
extract info from that source I beg to do so and share that info
with us.
 
 
Regards.
$$\