Re: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers roundup

Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > However, the IETF might want to change it to the opposite name from > the one you pick, or even something else. So you're quite possibly > going to repeat this debate in their forum, so save (some of) your > strength. Or the posts. ;-) _

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers roundup

Whatever you folks decide about List-Agent vs. Mediator, I'd be happy to help write up an RFC draft that registers the various header field names and descriptions and start it on its path to standardization. However, the IETF might want to change it to the opposite name from the one you pick, o

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

> -Original Message- > From: mailman-developers-bounces+msk=cloudmark@python.org > [mailto:mailman-developers-bounces+msk=cloudmark@python.org] On Behalf Of > Barry Warsaw > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:45 PM > To: mailman-developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Develo

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Barry Warsaw writes: > 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 > > instead: [...] > > That makes a good case for Mediator. +1, but only for the

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers roundup

Barry Warsaw writes: > On Nov 10, 2011, at 02:17 PM, C Nulk wrote: > > >I understand what you are saying. To me "Mediator" doesn't describe the > >same information specifically because it is too general in meaning. > >"List-Agent" as the header makes sense to me. Mediator generalizes across

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

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 > instead: > > A Mediator attempts to preserve the original Author's information in > the message it reformulat

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On Oct 28, 2011, at 11:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >I've got a separate draft that adds to Received: fields a tag that indicates >transitions of messages into administrative hold states (quarantining, timed >delivery and list moderation are included in the initial list of reasons) >ready to

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers roundup

On Nov 10, 2011, at 02:17 PM, C Nulk wrote: >I understand what you are saying. To me "Mediator" doesn't describe the >same information specifically because it is too general in meaning. >"List-Agent" as the header makes sense to me. I'm torn. I see where Patrick is coming from, but I also wonde

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Topics/sublists (was Re: Mailman headers roundup)

On Nov 02, 2011, at 02:38 PM, Terri Oda wrote: >One of the goals with Systers' summer of code work has been to get some of >this stuff integrated with Mailman, so if we're talking about fixing the >topic system, I highly recommend we take advantage of the lovely code already >prepared for us. :) W

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers roundup

On Nov 02, 2011, at 09:26 AM, William Bagwell wrote: >I happen to like Topics and find them quite usefull. You are correct >however in that they are confusing. The few lists I have been on through >the years that enabled Topics were all social lists with non-technical >users. BTW, these lists s