[Mailman-Users] how to change the List-ID (RFC2919)
barry at list.org
Tue Mar 3 05:40:03 CET 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mar 2, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I disagree. The identity of a list is what it is, and shouldn't
> change because the server changes. The issue here arises because in
> Mailman 2.1, lists have no sense of their own identity<wink>, and rely
> on their association with a server to derive an identity. So by
> providing this feature we're not hiding ID to placate the outside
> world, we're *exposing* ID to improve reliability.
> While Mark is correct that the RFC says "SHOULD", and so it's optional
> if tools like Mailman find the implementation painful, I would say
> this is a MUST for MM3, and deserves consideration as a SHOULD for
> It's not obvious that it even needs be exposed in the UI for MM2.
> Moving servers is something that requires intervention by somebody
> with root access, so command-line configuration is sufficient for MM2,
> I think.
> AFAIK there are no tools out there that depend on continuity of
> List-Id (except user filters, and even those may continue to work by
> and large if they match on the mailbox rather than the full ID), so I
> wouldn't call it "urgent", even for MM3.
What I'm saying is that the RFC states "While it is perfectly
acceptable for a list identifier to be completely independent of the
domain name of the host machine servicing the mailing list, the owner
of a mailing list MUST NOT generate list identifiers in any domain
namespace for which they do not have authority."
So, if you're moving a list from one domain to another, and you want
to keep your old List-ID, you must still control the old domain. If
not, then ISTM you MUST change the List-ID. In certain environments,
I think you can trust the list admins to get this right, but in others
you might trust only the site administrators. So how much control do
you give to list admins?
The core question is whether /someone/ should be able to (easily) set
the List-ID, and I think we agree the answer to that is "yes". You
state that command-line configuration would be fine for MM2, and I
agree with that too. :) I still think the posting address makes for a
fine default value (well, s/@/./ of course).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Mailman-Users