[Mailman-Users] Re: remove this?

[Bill Warner]

At 01:33 PM 5/8/01 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote:
>Someone posted a hack to remove the headers a while ago. Search the list 
>if you're interested.

OK, I found a reference to this in the archive, and located the spot to 
hack the code.  On my first look I didn't grep deep enough into the 
distribution.  Mea Culpa.  So, this will be my last post on the subject and 
then I'll quietly go away, to the delight of the self-righteous among us, 
and hack my own installation.

>The Mailman developers are just following RFC2369.

Thanks for the cite, Mike.  I've read RFC2369, and while I applaud 
following the relevant RFCs, I'd like to make a few observations about 2369 
and it's application to Mailman:

1. Despite the protestations of some, there is nothing mandatory or 
required about these headers.  Quite the contrary.  From RFC2369: 
"Implementing these fields will be optional."

2. It seems clear, IMO, that the intent of RFC2369 is that you should be 
able to choose a subset of these headers on a per list basis: "Thus, some 
list managers or mail clients can choose to implement a subset of the 
fields based on the specific needs of their individual lists."  It makes 
absolutely no sense, for example, to send the List-Post header to a 
read-only list, or to send the List-Archive header to a list that isn't 
archived.

3. If the intent is really to be hard-assed about literal compliance with 
RFC2369 then

(a) why aren't the List- headers optionally configurable as implied by the 
RFC itself?

(b) why are List- (eg. List-Id) headers which are not defined in RFC2369 
implemented even though the RFC is already concerned about "avoiding the 
creation of too many fields"?

(c) why isn't the List-Owner field, which is defined in the RFC, implemented?

>All lists will eventually implement this, so I'd figure out a way to 
>educate your users.

If and when MUAs make automated use of these headers as suggested by the 
RFC, then it may be a good idea.  But until then, I simply can't afford the 
added tech support burden to teach every user how to make this kind of 
config change to their particular client.  It's hard enough to keep their 
basic setting in order!  ;-)

>  Just my opinion.

As the above is just mine...


--Bill