MESSAGE
| DATE | 2015-02-17 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Matching this mailing list for procmail rules
|
Quoting Ruben Safir (mrbrklyn-at-panix.com):
> you mean majordomo. Procmail is it's own problem. I think I can add
> mail headers if you point me to the RFC
I already did, you know.
http://www.professional.org/procmail/listname_id.rc
Some common headers used for traffic control to/from mailing lists are,
without particular attention to RFCs:
X-BeenThere: hangout-at-nylxs.com
X-Mailing-list: hangout-at-nylxs.com
Precedence: list
List-Id: NYLXS General Discussion Forum
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe:
In majordomo's case, the List-Unsubscribe and List-Subscribe headers
I created (supra) would not exactly work and are perhaps best omitted,
because IIRC majordomo parses commands only if they are message body
text, and ignores ones in the Subject header.
That pair aside, your mailing list's postings would be more compliant
with current expectations for mailing list headers if those were added.
As to the implication of 'I'll add them if you can prove they have RFC
imprimatur' (loosely paraphrased), I hope you are aware that IETF
deliberately and consciously follows implementations rather than
attempting to lead them. This key point, among others, is covered in
IETF's essay 'The Tao of IETF', which please see:
http://www3.ietf.org/tao.html
In a nutshell, the RFCs codify best practices that have already been
worked out as a working consensus in real-world networks. They are not
Thou-shalts, but rather 'This is the way the world works, and you do
otherwise at your peril.'
I cover that point in my FAQ about why even stubborn listadmins stopped
doing Reply-To munging when the consensus was settled in 2001.
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/?page=netiquette#replyto
|
|
