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. $$\