I received 3 copies of the body of this item. The headers were slightly different, and only in one case could I to some extent identify the list-address using what I feel are normal/obvious headers. Here follow all three sets, though I've taken the liberty of leaving in only those headers which are relevant to an item. (I couldn't care less about "Received:", "X-...:", "Lines:", "Phone:", etc. Note that "Prece[n]dence:" doesn't tell me anything, so I've instructed my mailreader to delete it also. Note also that in some cases the address-casing in the "Cc:" line is not the same as in the other(s). | Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]> | To: "F. Scott Ophof" <[log in to unmask]> | From: "Ravin Asar" <[log in to unmask]> | Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], | [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], | [log in to unmask] | Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM | In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400. | <[log in to unmask]> | Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT | Sender: [log in to unmask] | Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in <[log in to unmask]> | Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]> | To: "F. Scott Ophof" <[log in to unmask]> | From: "Ravin Asar" <[log in to unmask]> | Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], | [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], | [log in to unmask] | Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in <[log in to unmask]> | Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM | In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400. | <[log in to unmask]> | Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT | Sender: [log in to unmask] | Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]> | To: "F. Scott Ophof" <[log in to unmask]> | From: "Ravin Asar" <[log in to unmask]> | Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], | [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], | [log in to unmask] | Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in <[log in to unmask]> | Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM | In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400. | <[log in to unmask]> | Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT | Sender: [log in to unmask] The ONLY item which has a header displaying anything which could imply it's coming from a list is the second one, and even there it's of the <listname-OWNER@..> variety. All three I found in my mailbox, and none show the always clearly recognizable "Revised LISTSERV" setup, so none were from LSTSRV-L or comp.mail.misc. The second one says <List-Managers-Owner@...> in the "Sender:" line, so it's probably from <[log in to unmask]>. So which of the others comes from ListNix, which from Unix-Listserv? Or did you send me one directly, Ravin? In other words, could I be missing one? And no, Ravin, none of these Unix MLMs seems to have the "Reply-To:" set to the equiv. of "ignore poster, use list-addr-only". I don't even think it's possible in those MLMs. On Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT Ravin Asar said: >The message I received from "F. Scott Ophof" said: >... >> 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. >It occurred to me that none of the above should really be used as >indicators of MLM-generated mail for the simple reason that they >occur on the RHS of a field name. Come again? You mean the <submit-to-list-address> should be on the LEFT-hand side, ie. it should be the field-NAME? I misunderstand you, right? >> 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. >Yes, that does seem sensible to have, especially considering that >X-List* fields have been floating around for a while now, waiting to >be "adopted". A small semantic point here, though: just as one >doesn't use a "Sendername:", "Subjectmatter:" or a "Fromname:" field, >it would appear to be more appropriate and consistent (imho) to name >the field "List:". Agreed re semantics. From the same point of view I'd almost suggest to request that "Newsgroup:" be shortened to simply "News:". ;-) >I wonder if the people who started using the X-List* fields (I'm a >little short on history here) have anything in the works for >formalizing a definitive field now. The SRI-NIC was listed in >RFC822 as the keeper of registered field names. This might now be >a function of rs.internic.net. My experience with SRI-NIC (and now its successor) is less than phenomenal, so anyone who knows the magic incantations needed to extract info from that source I beg to do so and share that info with us. Regards. $$\