[Mailman-Users] Re: remove this?

[Bill Warner]

At 05:32 PM 5/10/01 -0700, Dan Mick wrote:
 >So you have no problem.  So why are you complaining about them?
 >You can't have it both ways.

No.  I said that adoption was underway.  I didn't say it was 
complete.  Besides, there are other reasons to make the 2369 headers 
optional in addition to the short-term MUA issues and the associated user 
truculence.

People use real lists in a variety of ways.  In some of those situations it 
just doesn't make sense to be sending the whole set of 2369 headers to a 
list, and I don't think that it is possible to anticipate, and code for, 
all of the possible variations.  Only the list admin can determine which 
subset of the 2369 headers makes sense in light of the policies, 
procedures, and needs of a particular list.  The authors of RFC 2369 
recognize this.

The bottom line disagreement seems to be that some folks think that list 
admins are not capable of making that decision in a responsible way.  I 
happen to think that they are.  Especially if we work to educate them about 
the benefits of 2369 instead of immediately castigating them for asking the 
question.

 >Or maybe that set of people is merely misguided.  Who knows?

Then we are in good company with the misguided authors of RFC 2369.  I can 
live with that.

--Bill