[Mailman-Developers] [Mailman-Users] A modest proposal: Reply-To munging considered *carefully*

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Since we're getting concrete here, redirecting to Mailman Developers.

Barry Warsaw writes:
 > On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

 > I would start by putting it under Initiatives here:
 > 
 > http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/Home
 > 
 > But really, we should have a separate page/section for RFCs/standards  
 > we're proposing.

It will be a couple of days (Oct 15 is tax day for US expats), but
I'll do that, too (pulling in the stuff I mentioned in that long post
on Email-SIG), if you think it makes sense.  The idea would be to have
a top page "Conformance Statements for RFCs, Standards, and
Conventions", it would have a list by standards document:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Conformance Statements for RFCs, Standards, and Conventions
===========================================================

- `RFC 1149`__ ("IP Packet Transport via Avian Carrier")

- `List Response Precedence`__ ("Reply-To munging considered carefully")

__ RFC1149Conformance
__ ListResponsePrecedenceConformance
----------------------------------------------------------------

The linked pages would have structure:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Draft RFC: List Response Precedence Conformance
===============================================

Standard: `Draft RFC: List Response Precedence`__
Status of Implementation: verified [or "assigned: BAW" or "open" or
    "implementation not complete"]
Date of last change: 1066 October 14

__ DraftRFCListResponsePrecedence [this would reside on our wiki, the
    link for RFC 1149 would point to an IETF resource]

Tasks
-----

Check for "Mail-Followup-To" header field: implemented and tested.
Check for "List-Response-Precedence" header field: design blocked
    pending completion of draft RFC.
Option in web interface: not started.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sound good?  Or is this too anal-retentive?  Few would have to be so
detailed, but if there are things we decide not to implement, it would
be good to have this as a reference documenting that decision.