Re: [Mailman-Developers] [Mailman-Users] A modest proposal: Reply-To munging considered *carefully*
[Your original message probably didn't make it to mailman-developers
since it was spelled "mailman-devel@python.org" -BAW]
On Oct 10, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
- A formal proposal of a new header field, Responses-To, whose sole purpose is to allow mailing lists conforming to RFC 2369 to hint to MUAs whether a reply or followup is usually appropriate on the list.
I've cross-posted to Mailman Developers because I'd like to solicit the opinions of those folks about whether Mailman should implement this draft RFC early in the process. Concrete proposals are a ways off, though. Followup to Mailman Users, please.
So a couple of things.
I'm not opposed to implementing draft RFCs or even defacto proposals
in Mailman as long as we label them experimental. IOW, should the RFC
change, we'll obviously need to change Mailman to conform. A lot of
email lore is just defacto standards and we already support many of
them. We'll take them on a case-by-case basis, but Mailman should not
blindly rule out supporting them. For the ones we like, Mailman
support can go a long way to proving the feasibility and perhaps
nudging others to support the proposals as well (see my Archived-At
contents proposal).
In general, I like Stephen's proposal as a way to help reduce the
ambiguity in this very common workflow. I'll bikeshed on this detail:
I think the header should be called Response-Precedence or maybe List-
Response-Precedence.
The 'List-*' prefix is evocative of RFC 2369 and since this is a list
specific header, it should probably be prefixed as such. A counter
argument would be that because it's the user and not the list that's
making the value choice, it should not be a List-* header.
Response-Precedence is evocative of the defacto Precedence header, and
it makes some sense to me because you're specifying the precedence of
where responses should go, based on the conditional you posted. *-To:
headers feel more like they should contain an address but this has a
limited vocabulary, as does Precedence, so I like it not being a *-To
header.
As for going the RFC route, I think it's not a bad idea, but I have no
idea how much work is involved. ;)
-Barry
Barry Warsaw writes:
[Your original message probably didn't make it to mailman-developers
since it was spelled "mailman-devel@python.org" -BAW]
Thanks.
In general, I like Stephen's proposal as a way to help reduce the
ambiguity in this very common workflow. I'll bikeshed on this detail:
I think the header should be called Response-Precedence or maybe List- Response-Precedence.
Fine with me, either way. I waffled on the name anyway.
The 'List-*' prefix is evocative of RFC 2369 and since this is a list
specific header, it should probably be prefixed as such.
It's not just list-specific, it's specifically for the use of lists, not users. As such it seems reasonable to me that it would be prefixed "List-".
As for going the RFC route, I think it's not a bad idea, but I have no
idea how much work is involved. ;)
For anything related to Reply-To/Mail-Followup-To, it's probably a pretty long road. I wouldn't mind having an RFC in my cv, though. (It is *not* going to List Domain Signing Policy, though, that can of worms I'll feed to the fish.)
On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
It's not just list-specific, it's specifically for the use of lists, not users. As such it seems reasonable to me that it would be prefixed "List-".
As for going the RFC route, I think it's not a bad idea, but I have
no idea how much work is involved. ;)For anything related to Reply-To/Mail-Followup-To, it's probably a pretty long road. I wouldn't mind having an RFC in my cv, though. (It is *not* going to List Domain Signing Policy, though, that can of worms I'll feed to the fish.)
Perhaps a good place to start is to write up a draft on wiki.list.org?
-Barry
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Barry Warsaw writes:
Perhaps a good place to start is to write up a draft on wiki.list.org?
Will do. Is there a good place to put it?
I would start by putting it under Initiatives here:
http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/Home
But really, we should have a separate page/section for RFCs/standards
we're proposing.
-Barry
Since we're getting concrete here, redirecting to Mailman Developers.
Barry Warsaw writes:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I would start by putting it under Initiatives here:
http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/Home
But really, we should have a separate page/section for RFCs/standards
we're proposing.
It will be a couple of days (Oct 15 is tax day for US expats), but I'll do that, too (pulling in the stuff I mentioned in that long post on Email-SIG), if you think it makes sense. The idea would be to have a top page "Conformance Statements for RFCs, Standards, and Conventions", it would have a list by standards document:
Conformance Statements for RFCs, Standards, and Conventions
RFC 1149__ ("IP Packet Transport via Avian Carrier")List Response Precedence__ ("Reply-To munging considered carefully")
__ RFC1149Conformance __ ListResponsePrecedenceConformance
The linked pages would have structure:
Draft RFC: List Response Precedence Conformance
Standard: Draft RFC: List Response Precedence__
Status of Implementation: verified [or "assigned: BAW" or "open" or
"implementation not complete"]
Date of last change: 1066 October 14
__ DraftRFCListResponsePrecedence [this would reside on our wiki, the link for RFC 1149 would point to an IETF resource]
Tasks
Check for "Mail-Followup-To" header field: implemented and tested. Check for "List-Response-Precedence" header field: design blocked pending completion of draft RFC. Option in web interface: not started.
Sound good? Or is this too anal-retentive? Few would have to be so detailed, but if there are things we decide not to implement, it would be good to have this as a reference documenting that decision.
participants (2)
-
Barry Warsaw -
Stephen J. Turnbull