Up to now I've only seen replies which come down to this:
   There's no SINGLE header which is used by ALL MLMs to inform the
   reader that the item is from "Name of list <listname@address>".
Note that the addr format (FQDN, BITnet addr, bang-type, X.400, or
whatever) is irrelevant.
 
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.
 
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*??
 
To clarify (just in case), I'm NOT interested in the MLM-side of the
matter, only that the READER (human/software) can identify without
ambiguity the ==> LIST-ADDRESS <== (plus optionally its name).
 
For some time I thought that "Newsgroups: groupname[s]" meant "you
are reading an item that was posted as-is to 'groupname[s]'".  But
now I see that people use that header to indicate that they copied
the item from 'groupname[s]', quote (parts of) it, and send it off
via email as private replies.
So using that header as an analogy/example of what I mean is out...
 
Most (not all) list hosted by a "Revised LISTSERV" have both the
"Sender:" and "Reply-To:" set to the list-address, thus making
identification (and replying) easy.
The exception is when list-owner/subscribers have indicated that
a "Reply-To:" set by the poster should be respected (or even always
the poster's addr).
Even in that case the address in the (in the formal sense mis-used)
"Sender:" header is a clear indicator for the reader/software.
 
Does anyone have any info on RFCs which have proposed a header for
what I'm asking?
 
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.
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:".
 
 
On Mon, 12 Jul 93 09:04:37 EDT Ravin Asar said on List-Manager:
>...
>I would imagine that list maintainers would use a combination of
>"From:", "Reply-To:" and "Errors-To:" headers to ensure that postings
>to the list are replyable in a consistent manner.  That way the burden
>of reliability rests with the maintainer rather than a list user.
 
You sent me three items (carbon-copy bodies, two private, one to
List-Managers), none of which had a header identifying the exact
list-address to reply to.
 
 
On Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:12:31 +0200 Stephen R. van den Berg said on List-Managers:
..["Precendence: list" means it's from A list]..
 
This still does not identify the <submit_address_of_the_list>, as
you call it (clearest definition I've seen yet btw!).
To need TWO headers for one piece of data seems imho overkill.
Or is:
   Precendence: group
a valid form to indicate it's a newsgroup item?  Are there other
values which are valid here?
 
 
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.
 
Hmm..  I was quite sure I saw them (Don't know where, Don't know
when".. as the song goes).  But I'll snag a couple, double-check,
and report back.
 
 
Regards.
$$\