[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IETF-PKIX] testing new listserv software
I'm not sure where the best place to discuss these issues is (on the
list? it affects the list's audience. on another list? do we all read
that other list? privately? see point 1), so I apologize if this is
the wrong place. Two quick comments, and I'll discuss this no more.
Wrt modifying the subject line: I've already seen at least one message
that had [IETF-PKIX] in the subject twice, probably due to characters
other than "re:" appearing at the beginning. IMHO, this makes the
subject lines too long and makes it difficult to follow a conversation.
I appreciate the reason, to make it easier to sift through one's Inbox,
or to enable automatic message processing, but, personally I find it to
add little or no value, and I believe that there is a better way (see
Wrt to not modifying the "To:" line: I agree that this violates 5.1 of
the I-D. However, in this instance, I think it is the I-D that needs to
change. Personally, I find it much easier to manage by Inbox processing
rules when I know in advance exactly what address will appear in the
headers. I could care less what field it's in. What I do like is the
fact that it is 100% consistent. May I make a suggestion? Allow
modification of the list address as follows: "canonicalize" the list
address to some well-known value, and leave it where it was. No other
modifications are permitted.
Again, apologies if most list readers don't appreciate this
meta-discussion, or do, but read other more appropriate lists and wish
it were there.
I'll return to lurking,
Peter Whittaker Entrust Key Validation Sequence: 7ORS-NGND-P6ZX
System Architect, SI mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: +1 613 247 3485
Entrust Technologies http://www.entrust.com Fax: +1 613 247 3401
>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 6:38 AM
>Subject: Re: [IETF-PKIX] testing new listserv software
>Unfortunately I cannot ignore the test, as it shows a bit
>too many uncomfortable list properties for my taste.
>Compared to the proposed requirements for IETF listservers
>(draft-moore-maillist-req-01.txt), you have:
>- Added a REPLY-TO header that points to the mailing list,
> violating section 5.1.1's SHOULD NOT.
>- Added a subject modifier [IETF-PKIX] - this is legal, but
> not to my taste. Not least because it's long - [PKIX] would
> have been better. Section 5.1.2
>- Added a Sender field pointing to the list, violating 5.1.4
>- From the rather consistent way the To field is written, I
> suspect that the listserver is also munging this field,
> in violation of the general directive of section 5.1
>The TIP list, hosted on the same listserver, has apparently been
>configured better, since it does not show the Reply-to and Sender
>problems; I suspect it may still have the To: problem.
>I hope you can reconfigure this.
> Harald T. Alvestrand