I agree with the bit about "X-No-Archive" for sure. I'd prefer something less than YAHCXS (yet another horribly complex XML schema) yet something more than just a simple text description. However, I do think that's more appropriate for an RFC discussion than discussion here. So count me in for the RFC, I guess.
I really like the idea of a "get policy" command too. Most of the lists I work with require a list charter that talks about such things which is available as a simple HTML file that would be good for that. thanks! kt -----Original Message----- From: Barry A. Warsaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 3:42 PM To: List Managers Subject: Re: The gmane issue >>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> D) Included as a header AND a machine-parseable line in the >> body of the confirmation AND welcome message. >> I pick #D. CVR> There's already a defacto standard of X-No-Archive for "do CVR> not archive this message". CVR> How about creating another header: CVR> X-No-Archive-List: (descriptive string). CVR> If that exists, then the string either explains the policy or CVR> points to a URL that explains the policy. If that exists, you CVR> don't archive that list without following the policy. CVR> Too simple? I agree that a header is probably fine, but /please/ let's not make the same mistake as with "X-No-Archive: yes" -- let's make a positive assertion instead. Something like "X-Archive-Policy: (descriptive string)". I'm not sure what to put in there for "descriptive string". Some wacky thoughts: - A url pointing to an XML file for some hugely complicated syntax that covers every possible policy decision under the sun. Start the standards process now. <wink>. - Some simple strings like "No-Mirrors", "Ask-First", "Free-For-All" Also, what about standardizing an email command that can be used to ask the listserver for its policy? -Barry
