[Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs
CNulk at scu.edu
Wed Oct 26 17:00:15 CEST 2011
On 10/26/2011 5:43 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:04, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field names. Just
>>> call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's worthwhile, consider registering it
>>> with IANA.
If registering headers is to be pursued, perhaps a standardized list of
headers should be discussed with other MLM's and then put forth to
IANA. The standardized headers should be able to handle generic list
information along with MLM specific. My thought would be for
List-* are generic headers all MLM's and MUA's can refer to for
List-Mailman-* would be Mailman specific headers
List-ListServ-* would be ListServ specific headers
>> I wonder if we should remove the X- prefixes for Mailman 3. Here's a list of
>> ones we still add or recognize (some might be used only in the test suite):
> This could be replaced with DKIM sigs, I guess.
> This might be useful for diagnostics, but probably wants to be off in general. My view is that Mailman should not be doing message filtering.
> I guess that's useful for avoiding list loops, perhaps?
> I think this should be replaced with X-Mailer, or even User-Agent. That's not currently an SMTP header, but I think it should be. And it is in quite widespread use.
I agree and disagree. I may be wrong but I see the X-Mailer specifying
the MTA and User-Agent specifying the MUA. Perhaps a different header
added by the MLM called List-Agent or List-ListAgent.
> Does this do the same as List-Archive?
> What does this mean?
> Isn't that usually in the Received header?
> Doesn't that do the same thing as List-post?
> What's the purpose of including this?
> I think we should use User-Agent here. Thunderbird does, as do some other mail clients. Or, we should push for introduction of a List-Agent header.
List-Agent header is my vote (see above :))
> Don't the Received headers carry this information?
Maybe. They certainly contain the date the MTA received the message but
not necessarily when the MLM received the message. Consider a message
to be posted to a list. The MTA receives it and it is passed on to a
Spam/AntiVirus device. The message is held at the device because is
fails whatever checks are in place. Five days later, the device
administrator goes through the held queue on the device, sees the
message as okay and releases it. The MLM then receives the message to
be posted. Now, when did the MLM really receive the message? When the
MTA received it or five days later. I think there is enough of a
possibility that keeping Received headers different from say a
> Generally, I think we should avoid the use of headers that duplicate other existing headers. Where we want to add more information, then extend the List-* header set if the information might be generally useful for mailing list software. Otherwise, use X-Mailman-* (or even Mailman-*) so that people know where the header came from.
I agree. Reduce and avoid duplication. Discussions should also occur
with other MLM's to come up with a generic List-* header set.
> Ian Eiloart
> Postmaster, University of Sussex
> +44 (0) 1273 87-3148
Hope I made sense, Thanks,
> Mailman-Developers mailing list
> Mailman-Developers at python.org
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/cnulk%40scu.edu
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
More information about the Mailman-Developers