Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <fml463$udb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 
>> there are situations where an existing Sender currently
>> IS modified, that being regarded as good practice.

>The precise number of RFCs discussing to *modify* an
>existing Sender header field I'm aware of is zero, what
>do you have in mind ?

That is because there is currently no RFC covering best practices for
mailing list expansions (that is a gap that ought to be filled).

But nevertheless, the practice of forcing the address of the mailing list
expander into the Sender header (whether or not such a header was present
before hand) is so widespread that any RFC that might appear in future
would have a hard time it is tried to reverse that convention.

De Facto, that is the accepted usage, and we have to live with that.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5