From owner-mail-ng Thu Jan 29 10:49:13 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TInDow037397 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:49:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i0TInDjd037396 for mail-ng-skb; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:49:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from [63.202.92.156] (adsl-63-202-92-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.92.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TInCRF037390 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:49:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:49:07 -0800 To: mail-ng@imc.org From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Starting the mail-ng discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Greetings again. So, let the wide-ranging and far-reaching discussion begin. Note that this is not an IETF or IRTF activity yet. I have some ideas of ways of facilitating the discussion that I will introduce as the discussion moves forwards. They might involve things that aren't currently done in the IETF or IRTF. Please remember to keep the subject lines relevant to the discussion. If you are about to post a message that has gone off-thread, change the subject line. Also, please refrain from posting protocol suggestions before there is general agreement about the problem. That might be years from now. It is easy to propose protocol suggestions; unfortunately, they tend to cut off discussion about the nature and scope the problem. Many heavily-opinionated people on this list will say what they think. The eventual solution will most assuredly benefit if others speak as well. Thoughtful consideration of unexpected voices can lead to inspiration. If you have questions about the administration of the list, please contact me off-line. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From owner-mail-ng Thu Jan 29 12:15:57 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TKFvq0046631 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:15:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i0TKFvr5046628 for mail-ng-skb; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:15:57 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from heisenberg.zen.co.uk (heisenberg.zen.co.uk [212.23.8.70]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TKFr9t046578 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:15:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from paul@hedonism.cluefactory.org.uk) Received: from 82-68-129-78.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk ([82.68.129.78] helo=saltationism.dnsalias.net) by heisenberg.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AmIZr-0005Ow-6U for mail-ng@imc.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:15:51 +0000 Received: from paul by saltationism.dnsalias.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1) for mail-ng@imc.org id 1AmIZo-0002oK-00 (Debian 2.1); Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:15:48 +0000 To: mail-ng@imc.org Subject: Some existing proposals for next-generation email References: From: Paul Crowley X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3D8298B6 C0721685 53AF021D 4D2917FA Date: 29 Jan 2004 20:15:48 +0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <87y8rqy0i3.fsf@saltationism.subnet.hedonism.cluefactory.org.uk> Lines: 9 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Originating-Heisenberg-IP: [82.68.129.78] Sender: owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: IM2000 (mail lives on sender's server): http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html PETmail (sender needs permission): http://www.lothar.com/tech/spam/ AMTP (policy driven SMTP+TLS): http://amtp.bw.org/ EMSD (fewest round-trips for mobile devices): http://www.emsd.org/ X.400 (ITU standard still favoured by some): http://www.alvestrand.no/x400/ -- __ Paul Crowley \/ o\ sig@paul.ciphergoth.org /\__/ http://www.ciphergoth.org/ From owner-mail-ng Thu Jan 29 12:41:03 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TKf3jJ052297 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:41:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i0TKf3lf052296 for mail-ng-skb; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:41:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from alaia01.alaia.net (dsl093-060-235.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.60.235]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TKf1S6052276 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:41:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marc@alaia.net) Received: by alaia01.alaia.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:41:02 -0500 Message-ID: <5B734AC36BC9714EB88451E6E2F043B1155F01@alaia01.alaia.net> From: Marc Alaia To: mail-ng@imc.org Subject: RE: [mail-ng] Mailing List Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:41:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Paul, Would it be possible to have the mailing-list server embed the name of the mailing list in the subject of the distributed messages, such as I've done? Easier to move into folders in an automated fashion, that way.... Regards, Marc Alaia -----Original Message----- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [mailto:phoffman@imc.org] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:49 PM To: mail-ng@imc.org Subject: Starting the mail-ng discussion Greetings again. So, let the wide-ranging and far-reaching discussion begin. Note that this is not an IETF or IRTF activity yet. I have some ideas of ways of facilitating the discussion that I will introduce as the discussion moves forwards. They might involve things that aren't currently done in the IETF or IRTF. Please remember to keep the subject lines relevant to the discussion. If you are about to post a message that has gone off-thread, change the subject line. Also, please refrain from posting protocol suggestions before there is general agreement about the problem. That might be years from now. It is easy to propose protocol suggestions; unfortunately, they tend to cut off discussion about the nature and scope the problem. Many heavily-opinionated people on this list will say what they think. The eventual solution will most assuredly benefit if others speak as well. Thoughtful consideration of unexpected voices can lead to inspiration. If you have questions about the administration of the list, please contact me off-line. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From owner-mail-ng Thu Jan 29 13:15:54 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLFssQ060494 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:15:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i0TLFsgg060488 for mail-ng-skb; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:15:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with SMTP id i0TLFqhT060446 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:15:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from markus.gloede@gmx.de) Received: (qmail 7420 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Jan 2004 21:15:43 -0000 Received: from port-212-202-73-142.reverse.qsc.de (EHLO TAUPINIERE) (212.202.73.142) by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 29 Jan 2004 22:15:43 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1299816 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:15:43 +0100 From: Markus Gloede X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1237895625.20040129221543@gmx.de> To: mail-ng@imc.org Subject: Re: [mail-ng] Mailing List In-Reply-To: <5B734AC36BC9714EB88451E6E2F043B1155F01@alaia01.alaia.net> References: <5B734AC36BC9714EB88451E6E2F043B1155F01@alaia01.alaia.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, Marc wrote: > Would it be possible to have the mailing-list server embed the name > of the mailing list in the subject of the distributed messages, such > as I've done? Easier to move into folders in an automated fashion, > that way.... Interesting that the list should start with such a basic yet mail related question. I for one vote against this since in longer threads with different MUAs involved subjects might become quite ugly, e.g.: [mail-ng] Re[1]: [mail-ng] Mailing List [mail-ng] Aw: [mail-ng] Re[1]: [mail-ng] Mailing List Most email programs are capable to filter using To and From addresses. These are better suited for sorting. Not all mail clients are able to use regular expressions to clean up such mangled subject lines. While we're discussing trivialities: I suggest (if the mail list handling software is capable of doing this) that the Reply-To header be set to the list address to avoid discussions going off-list involuntarily. I'm looking forward to many insightful exchanges. Regards, Markus Gloede P.S.: Is there going to be a list archive? If yes, will personal email addresses in the messages be obscured? From owner-mail-ng Thu Jan 29 13:15:11 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLFBZt060330 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:15:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i0TLFBC2060329 for mail-ng-skb; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:15:11 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLF8wb060312 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:15:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from moore@cs.utk.edu) Received: from localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7FEB0012 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05419-10; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:15:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B2DAFE21; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:15:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:15:07 -0500 From: Keith Moore To: mail-ng@imc.org Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Setting the stage Message-Id: <20040129161507.037a0290.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Sender: owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Okay, just to set the stage... What kind of world do we find ourselves in (regarding email protocols...), and why, at some point in the future, might we want to migrate to something new? What are the driving factors that might change how we use email and therefore what we want email protocols to do for us? - Managing complexity Because of the extreme success of the Internet in general and email in particular, both SMTP and MIME have been extended to the point that they are getting fairly baroque. ("baroque" in the sense that the term is applied to programming languages - meaning they lack coherence and regularity, and there is a tendency for features to compete with one another and sometimes conflict.) Every new extension adds complexity; that much is obvious. What is perhaps less obvious is that extensions add more complexity because they are optional and because they are implemented and deployed independently of one another. This manifests in various ways. If there are N optional features that each can be "off" or "on", this potentially results in 2**N code paths on each of the sender and receiver, which results in more code paths that need to be tested, more opportunities for the system to fail in obscure ways (when the code follows seldom-used paths), etc. If all optional features were such that the sender or receiver could enable them independently of one another, this would be (2**N)**2 total sender/receiver code paths for one sender/receiver pair. If there is a firewall between the two that modifies traffic it gets even worse. Now multiply that times the (growing) number of different sender and/or receiver implementations in widespread use. The above applies to both SMTP and the message format. Now for SMTP, multiply that times the number of hops a typical mail message traverses in getting from origin to destination - any one of which can result in message failure. This is of course exaggerated, because different options have different effects, some of them are very simple and unlikely to fail, many options cannot be enabled independently on both ends, etc. But it doesn't take an exhaustively accurate mathematical model to show that incrementally extending Internet mail protocols over and over again leads to a lot of complexity that costs us in terms of implementation overhead, testing time, product support costs, operational costs, and degraded reliability. This is true for both SMTP and MIME but it's more true for SMTP. And to a large extent the complexity results from having too many different ways to do the same thing. We're seeing this start to happen. It used to be unusual for two SMTP implementations to fail to be able to talk to each other. Now it happens occasionally, usually because one end or the other failed to implement an optional feature correctly. Transparent firewalls make failures even more likely. This situation isn't horrible yet but it will get worse. What we might need to do is have a solution for when it gets too bad, one that doesn't involve further incremental extension of SMTP or MIME and haphazard deployment of each new extension. - Other factors At the same time, email is starting to become a liability for many people. Spam has given email a high noise-to-signal ratio - so high that some people who were on the fringes of the net anyway don't bother reading their email much anymore. Email-borne viruses have made it risky to use a general-purpose computer to read email. If we believe there is value in the email communications paradigm (as opposed to say, SMS or downloading things from the web) we need to fix the spam problem in an effective way. To some degree this has been difficult because the norm for operation in the existing email system is to allow mail from anybody without any kind of authentication or tracability. There is now pressure to extend the format of email addresses to accomodate languages and names that aren't naturally representable in ASCII (which is to say, most languages). This could require changes to both the message format and the mail transport, since addresses are used by both of these. There is now pressure to make substantial changes to email protocols to accomodate voice mail and fax systems, which can degrade further interoperability of email if they're not done carefully. (I haven't read the latest draft of the content-negotiation proposal, so I don't yet know whether the problems with the old draft are fixed.) - A bit of speculation The way people use the Internet is going to change (again). There are a lot more cell phones in the world than home computers, and it's increasingly the case that new cell phones have some kind of Internet access capability. The Internet is the most obvious fabric to support convergence between dissimilar devices and communications paradigms. This may result in even more pressure to adapt email protocols for new purposes; it will certainly change how people use email in relation to other communications media. And then there's always a potential for IPv6 to put a wrinkle in how email works, if we get to the point that there's substantial divergence between the community served by IPv6 and that served by IPv4. (There was once divergence in how RFC 822 was used between BITNET/EARN and the Internet and in the UUCP world, so it could happen again.) ---- Responses are welcome. But rather than arguing about these too much at this stage I suspect it would be more productive if people contributed their own ideas about what factors might compel us to migrate to new or substantially changed mail protocols (or not). Keith -- He not busy being born, is busy dying. - Bob Dylan From owner-mail-ng Thu Jan 29 13:30:21 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLULZ1063447 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:30:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i0TLULZv063446 for mail-ng-skb; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:30:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from trout.cpsr.org (trout.cpsr.org [66.180.229.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLUKng063439 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:30:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nsb@guppylake.com) Received: from guppylake.com (trout [66.180.229.5]) by trout.cpsr.org (8.12.8p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLUL3i063506; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:30:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nsb@guppylake.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:30:20 -0500 Subject: Why are we here? What are our goals? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) From: Nathaniel Borenstein To: mail-ng@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <570F28A0-52A2-11D8-85D8-000A9571873E@guppylake.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Sender: owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: [Sincere thanks to Paul for starting this list.] As I stated on another mailing list, I'd like to see our email-ng efforts start with requirements analysis. However, I've always found it useful to start by compiling a wishlist, as raw data for requirements abstraction and tradeoff analysis. So I'd like to start a wish list of "plausible stuff it would be cool to include in email-ng." Here's what I've got so far (I don't actually advocate all of these): -- internationalization, esp. of addresses -- enhanced tracing mechanisms -- generalized challenge/response mechanisms -- transport-level authentication -- binary transport (phasing out C-T-E's) -- Cleaner separation of header, envelope, and body -- structured local-part syntax -- economic mechanisms (postage, attention bonds) I suggest that we try to grow this into a highly inclusive list of "desirable things" and then attempt to determine a sensible subset to work on. -- Nathaniel From owner-mail-ng Thu Jan 29 13:44:50 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLioVB066240 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:44:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i0TLiob3066239 for mail-ng-skb; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:44:50 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (smtp.sprintpcs.com [63.167.114.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLinbl066215 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:44:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from research@solidmatrix.com) Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-336.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.234.239]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HS900EMVTQHGF@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for mail-ng@imc.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:44:46 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:44:36 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: Some existing proposals for next-generation email In-reply-to: <87y8rqy0i3.fsf@saltationism.subnet.hedonism.cluefactory.org.uk> To: Paul Crowley Cc: mail-ng@imc.org Message-id: <40197EC4.5080806@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <87y8rqy0i3.fsf@saltationism.subnet.hedonism.cluefactory.org.uk> Sender: owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Paul Crowley wrote: > IM2000 (mail lives on sender's server): http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html > PETmail (sender needs permission): http://www.lothar.com/tech/spam/ > AMTP (policy driven SMTP+TLS): http://amtp.bw.org/ > EMSD (fewest round-trips for mobile devices): http://www.emsd.org/ > X.400 (ITU standard still favoured by some): http://www.alvestrand.no/x400/ Another one that came across the ASRG list: MTP (TLS): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-email-mtp-00.txt AMTP: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crouzet-amtp-01.txt There is also a ton of others that came across the ASRG list, if anyone is interested. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- From owner-mail-ng Thu Jan 29 13:50:30 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLoUM5067517 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:50:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i0TLoUEU067514 for mail-ng-skb; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:50:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slot.hollandcasino.net (slot.hollandcasino.net [193.172.40.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0TLoTbo067496 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:50:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alex@ergens.op.het.net) Received: by slot.hollandcasino.net (Postfix, from userid 501) id 991FF17DC22; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:50:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:50:30 +0100 From: Alex van den Bogaerdt To: mail-ng@imc.org Subject: Re: [mail-ng] Mailing List Message-ID: <20040129225030.A27547@slot.hollandcasino.net> Mail-Followup-To: mail-ng@imc.org References: <5B734AC36BC9714EB88451E6E2F043B1155F01@alaia01.alaia.net> <1237895625.20040129221543@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <1237895625.20040129221543@gmx.de>; from markus.gloede@gmx.de on Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:15:43PM +0100 X-Legal-Note: ---------------------------------------------- Everything I write or say expresses my opinion only! Unless otherwise stated, I do not represent my employer or anyone else for that matter. ---------------------------------------------------- Sender: owner-mail-ng@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:15:43PM +0100, Markus Gloede wrote: > Interesting that the list should start with such a basic yet mail > related question. Indeed. For me it started even sooner. I programmed procmail to work on the envelope sender, which changed. > While we're discussing trivialities: I suggest (if the mail list > handling software is capable of doing this) that the Reply-To header > be set to the list address to avoid discussions going off-list > involuntarily. Whatever is chosen, please let's determine something that is not likely to change. For sorting, it could be Reply-to as much as anything else. Going into lurking mode for a while; I hope to witness interesting discussions and will speak up when/if I think I can contribute. cheers, Alex -- begin sig http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=alex+van+den+bogaerdt&type=1 This message was produced without any