On 10/24/2011 8:04 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field names. Just
call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's worthwhile, consider registering it
with IANA.
I wonder if we should remove the
On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field names. Just
>call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's worthwhile, consider registering it
>with IANA.
I wonder if we should remove the X- prefixes for Mailman 3. Here's a list
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
> My point is that if using header fields is the right way to encode
> this information in a protocol sense, then the issue is really that
> the MUAs need to expose that information somehow.
The success of the IETF RFC process is due to the fact that protocol
is bui
On 10/24/11 10:31 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:24 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: mailman-developers@python.org
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs
Isn't "hide
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:24 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: mailman-developers@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs
>
> > Isn't "hide" a function of the MUA, not the M
On 24 Oct 2011, at 15:02, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:00 AM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: mailman-developers@python.org
>> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM w
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:00 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: mailman-developers@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs
>
> Of course, that's DKIM friendly. But, while mos
On 13 Oct 2011, at 19:21, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> The document does point out that the "friendly" approach is to put stuff like
> URLs for querying archives and unsubscription instructions up in the header
> using the List-* fields specified in RFC2919 and RFC2369 rather than as body
>
