[Mailman-Users] Re: remove this?

[Bill Warner]

At 03:13 PM 5/9/01 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>On 5/9/01 1:33 PM, "Bill Warner" <lww at ictech.net> wrote:
>
> > OTOH, a strident "hack it or take a hike" anti-configuration stance (some
> > of the messages in the archive are downright hostile) actually makes it
> > harder for me, and others, to migrate towards full 2369 compliance, which
> > means it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
>
>Why? It creates dialog, which fosters education.

IMO, there are better ways to foster discussion & education.  The problem 
with zealotry is that it is more likely to alienate people than it is to 
convince them.

>Heck, you'd have done that anyway -- but now you know why they're there 
>and why we want them there, and you're doing it anyway. That's a net 
>positive towards adoption, because at least you're making an informed (if, 
>IMHO, wrong) choice.

After further reading I've come to the conclusion that this notion that 
making the List-* headers optional will inhibit their adoption is a red 
herring.  A number of MUAs already have, or said they will, implement 
support for these headers including Eudora.  The "List-Id" RFC 
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2919.txt), which is a follow-on to RFC 
2369 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2369.txt), was even written by a 
couple of guys at Qualcomm.  If Eudora supports this you can bet Micro$oft 
will too, in some form, and then claim they invented it of course.  So, 
adoption already seems to be underway.  And even if it wasn't, I simply 
don't believe that having a few Mailman admins turning these headers off on 
some of their lists would make any difference at all to the likes of 
Qualcomm, Micro$oft, or AOL.  In fact, I seriously doubt that they care 
about anything that Mailman does or doesn't do.

Even the authors of the revered RFC 2369 say, quite clearly I might add, 
that each individual List-* header should be optional on a per-list basis 
(http://www.nisto.com/listspec/server-author.html):

"The list administrator should be able to turn individual header fields on 
or off on a per-list basis."

The defense rests.

--Bill

PS - Hey, maybe those of us who think that making the List-* headers 
optional is a Good Thing(tm) aren't so stupid after all!

--Bill