On Tue, 18 May 1993 19:44:09 +0100 (BST) John Martin wrote:
[ details of problem removed - it makes me very tempted to have all these
hdrs removed but that's my opinion ]
>
>This was allowed to happen because I don't remove 'X-' headers - do you
>do this? Do you think I should? (I don't!)
>
>I have agreed to remove the 'X-Pmrqc' header as it goes through in the
>meantime.
>
>I have also agreed to add the following header to messages distributed
>(which some of you already add I think):
>
>X-Listserver: Your list server.
Suggest X-Listmanager: blah blah
(comes with minimal BITNET flames :-))
>
>I have been in contact with David Harris at Pegasus about this and he
>is as keen as I am to find a solution. We agreed that the 'X-Pmrqc'
>header should contain the address to which the confirmation would be
>sent. (We disagreed about whether Mailbase should remove 'X-' headers
>:-) )
>
>I also agreed to contact this list to try to achieve a consenus for
>identifying mail which has come from a mailing list. David will try
>to make provision for this in future versions of Pegasus if we can
>agree...
>
>(Dictator hat on)
>
>I think it would be nice if we all agreed on the format of a header to
>be added by our various list servers - would this be acceptable to the
>group? I prefer the 'X-Listserver:' form but I'm open to suggestions.
>
>Comments? flames?
>
There's always the Precedence: bulk but this is no guarentee.
IMO the X-Listmanager is free of all current name clashes.
my $0.0.2 worth....
--
Alan Thew
alan.thew@livbird.liv.ac.uk ...!uknet!livbird!alan.thew +44 51 794 3735
|
|
