Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
> So your perspective is "why bother [distinguishing List-Agent from
> User-Agent]", basically?
If you put it that way, yes. There sure does need to be a reason to
bother.
> That's fair, I guess, but at the same time, what's the harm in
> making the distinction?
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:step...@xemacs.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:50 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: mailman-developers@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers (was Re: New RFC on
> using DKIM
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
> I think having a message with User-Agent and List-Agent is less
> confusing than one with two User-Agents.
Who's going to be confused? Not end users.[1] I would think the real
application is for an administrator or software to look at them and
go, "Uh-oh, it's an
developers@python.org
> Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers (was Re: New RFC on using
> DKIM with MLMs)
>
> I think that's a bad idea. The version string should go in a *-Agent
> header, along with the agent's identity.
Agreed.
> While I disagree with having Mail
Barry Warsaw writes:
> >> X-Mailman-Version
> >
> >I think this should be replaced with X-Mailer, or even User-Agent. That's
> >not
> >currently an SMTP header, but I think it should be. And it is in quite
> >widespread use.
>
> This is just the version of Mailman that sent the message.
Right, sorry. I was in a hurry when I wrote my follow up, so let me provide
more detail about the headers, and my thoughts about the X-iness.
In general, Mailman should "play nice" but I also think it's not unreasonable
to claim the Mailman-* prefix and just start using it for Mailman-specific
he
