On Thu, 15 Jul 1993 08:30:41 -0800 (PDT) Alan Millar said on List-Managers:
>Verily didst Chip Rosenthal rise up and spake thus:
>> > Assuming that we could get consistent syntax among the MLMs,
>> > wouldn't it help the users to have one reserved name to send
>> > to?  This seems fundamentally obvious to me; what am I missing here?
 
Do you mean with "one reserved name to send to" that the following
line:
 
   HdrName:  [Name of list] <submit-posting-addr>
 
means:
   HdrName   Fieldname indicating that the item wherein this is a
             header was posted AS-IS to a mailing list, the address
             of which follows in the value section of this header.
             This fieldname may only be used for this one purpose.
 
   Name of list
             Name of the relevant mailing list (optional).
 
   submit-posting-addr
             The address to which postings are to be submitted in
             order for the item to be distributed to the members
             of this mailing list.
 
In other words, one does NOT use this field for anything else but to
extract the address needed to be able to "post to that list", and to
determine which mailing list this item was posted to AS-IS.
 
Thus:
 - MTAs would ignore this line totally, and neither add nor delete
   such a line.  I see no reason for them to take any action due
   to this line's presence or absence.
 - MUAs could make use of its presence and value in for example their
   reply and/or mail functions.  It should not be a function of a MUA
   to add this header.  (But see note 1)
 - All MLMs would add this header to postings being distributed to
   the list-members.
 - All MLMs should refuse items-submitted-for-distribution which
   contain this header.  I'm assuming this should not be the way for
   MLM X to tell MLM Y to distribute the item.  And if some person
   submits a posting including this header, then that item could be
   seen as "illegal".  (But see note 1)
 - An item may have zero or more such headers (and/or addresses on
   such lines).  This refers to the possibility of an item being
   distributed by more than one list.  (Shaky...  Useful?)
 
I am not referring to any specific format of "submit-posting-addr",
except that using it in "To:", "Cc:", or "Bcc:" will ensure that my
item is distributed to the members of the mailing list to which that
address is linked.
 
Due to the various interpretations I've seen, it seems my original
question wasn't clear enough.  Does the above rephrasing need
refining, or does it (by some miracel) cover the grounds fully
enough for all the networks (ie. not only Internet and BITnet)?
 
Possible values for "HdrName" have already been posted, some of
which are "X-List" and "List".
Tasos (or someone like him  :-) ) suggested using "X-List" till all
MLMs are sure the whole thing works as intended and "List" has been
registered, and then switch to "List".
Not knowing how this registering process works, I'll keep my mouth
shut about it, though would appreciate info on how/ where to find
out more about it.
 
Rehash of rationale for my question/request:
 - Each MLM I've seen postings from has a different way of
   indicating the item was posted to mailing list XYZ.
 - Some are such that I cannot easily determine which mailing list
   the item was posted to.
 - Overall consistency is a nice goal to work towards.
 - Such consistency would make it easier for MUAs to be designed/
   modified to process (replies to) mailing-list mail in a manner
   useful to the users.
      (Not relevant to MLMs, but it would make it possible
      for MUAs to group items per mailing list, something
      I've been wishing for since '89 or so...)
 
 
Note 1:
Alternatively, an item reaching an MLM:
 - WithOUT this header could be seen as an administrative item
   (like (un)subscribes, requests for help, to retrieve files,
   set options, etcetera).
 - WITH this header would be seen as an item to distribute to
   the list-members.
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".
 
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 also implies that all four addr forms above could be dropped,
with just <listname@..> being necessary.  EXCEPT... when one doesn't
know the name of the mailing list.  For this it would seem that we'd
need one (or more) addresses per site to deal with really *general*
administrative stuff.  The "or more" is based on the thought that
though there's generally only one instance of "Revised LISTSERV" per
site, this may not be the case with other MLMs.
 
(Evan & others, see that Duane's comment about "MLM-capacity" - ie.
maybe dependant on hardware, not software - IS relevant after all?
Maybe Unix experts would see it automatically.  It's not necessarily
true for non-experts.  What I'm saying is that it's perfectly normal
for experts to assume that I do know this, so this might have been
rejected out of hand, thus wasting possibly salvageable parts...)
 
Anyway, let's assume it were possible to designate <XYZ@..> as
general address for general administrativaria per site.  In that
case email to:
   <XYZ@...>
with body:
   SUBSCRIBE SomeList John Doe
should have the same result as mail (withOUT the "List" header) to:
   <SomeList@...>
with body:
   SUBSCRIBE John Doe
 
The first form is consistent with current behaviour.
The second could imply simpler command syntax; the MLM gets the
listname from the "To:" address (the addr in the "To:" field is
<listname@..>, of course) so doesn't need it in the command itself
anymore.
 
 
Though I didn't think it was relevant in any way, shape or form, the
rest of the original of this item (below) from Alan and Chip _did_
lead to the above alternative suggestion.  (Life is funny...  :-)  )
 
>> We should stick with the Internet convention of using a `-request'
>> address, and the local administrator should feel free to alias that
>> to whatever he or she feels inclined to do.
>This is fine for manually administered lists, but it seems silly to
>send a message to "foolist-request" with a message "subscribe foolist",
>doesn't it?
 
 
Gentle readers, please tear the above to pieces; it seems to be too
simple to be possible, but I can't think of any real objections...
 
 
Regards.
$$\
 
 
PS:
Does X.400 acknowledge/support the concept of mailing lists in re
reserved headers etc.?