On Oct 29, 2011, at 06:39 AM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: >I suggest we use the term 'Mediator' as introduced by D. Crocker in RFC 5598 ><http://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc5598.txt> instead: > > A Mediator attempts to preserve the original Author's information in > the message it reformulates but is permitted to make meaningful > changes to the message content or envelope. > > A Mediator's role is complex and contingent, for example, modifying > and adding content or regulating which Users are allowed to > participate and when. The common example of this role is a group > Mailing List. > > (see section "2.1.4. Mediator" and also section "5. Mediators")
That makes a good case for Mediator. >Hmm, if there are no intermediate processes between receiving a message and >approving it a List-Approved-Date seems fine. But if there are we run into the >same problem as described below with List-Archived-Date - you can't tell when >it was queued and when processing took place. > >Adding a second header might make the useful distinction: > >List-Received-Date > RFC 2822 date timestamp when message was received by MLM > >List-Approved-Date > RFC 2822 date timestamp when message was approved by moderator What if the message is automatically approved? Does it get a List-Approved-Date header? Merging with Murray's concept of Received states, it might just make more sense to put all that information into Received headers. >> Another header that might be useful here would be List-Approved-By which >> could be the name or email address of the moderator who approved it. Right >> now, MM3 doesn't fill that in, and it could of course be filled in by say >> [email protected], but in MM3 it could be potentially filled in with >> the preferred address for the moderator that approved it. > >I see the benefit because it helps if you moderate in a team. But I fear the >anger of people whose postings we decline. They search for moderator >identities and then start molesting them e.g. by subscribing them to mailing >lists that don't require opt-in. (Happend to me python.org postmaster. The >angry person subscribed my address to various pr0n mailing lists and it took >me weeks to get unsubscribed.) Good point. I do want to provide the opportunity to "anonymize" ownership roles via generic owner email addresses. E.g. on the listinfo page. >ACK with the notion that hashtag seems to closely realted with twitter and a >more general 'tag' would stay away from that. > >Is there or should there be a distinction between 'tag' and http 'keywords' ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_element#The_keywords_attribute>? Should we >use 'keywords' instead? We can't use Keywords, because that header is already used as input to various functions such as the topic tagger. We have to use a different header for "output". I can't think of anything better than List-Tags though. >List-Archive-Send-Date > 'List-Archive-Send-Date' sounds pretty clumsy and overly long. OTOH we > needn't care, as it will only be added to messages that go to the > archive, right? > >Archive-Transmit-Date, Archive-Transfer-Date, Archiv-Transfer > Marks the beginning in opposition to Archive-Received-Date or > Archive-Received. But then again an archiver could simply add a > Received:-header! > >Not an easy one. Agreed. :/ -Barry _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers 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/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
