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. $$\