[Mailman-Developers] 2.1.8 documentation mismatch

[Barry Warsaw]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:47:27 +0100 (BST)
David Lee <t.d.lee at durham.ac.uk> wrote:

> > Not "Authenticated". That implies that authentication has already
> > occurred. What you're doing is supplying a token to be used for
> > authentication. So, "Authentication" would be better. Or even
> > "Password".
> 
> I had picked on the past-tense terminology ("Authorised",
> "Authenticated", etc.) simply because the FAQ talks about an
> "Approved" (past tense) header.  But I believe the code also accepts
> (present tense) "Approve". So I had antcipated that my proposal would
> be similarly tense-tolerant!

Password seems reasonable.

> > Oh, and if it's an email header, shouldn't it be X-Authentication,
> > or whatever?
> 
> Two consistency trends pulling in opposite directions!
> 
> 1. RFC-ish things suggest "X-Whatever:".
> 
> 2. Mailman practice (the existing "Approved") suggests "Whatever:".
> 
> I was assuming I should follow the Mailman convention.  (Whether the
> Mailman convention needs revision is another matter...)

Approved was chosen for compatibility with Majordomo, so there was a
long tradition before us.  Approve was added because so many people
mistyped the original ;).

When blazing our own trails we should be more RFC compliant.

- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBRImP03EjvBPtnXfVAQLt6wP/Y/a4OuZ8r8kRm/JSrAh8jFU1d4OhsQ5c
l+s4kYYY3QE+IfGC92x+QRe6dVSp9jKEmtB08lA8pR2UvfYgc5xDMoZQ57ZYGyhA
f48FwdkOCfmr5MZgpfsbrMiR2fIKrzXx8bT6Bo803Sz07/F1+KbYLAlq3BSe8/4d
HP2qqroiZ5o=
=zWMz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----