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