OFFTOPIC Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)

[Jay Sekora]

> well, To: is who the email is sent to. CC: are other interested 
> parties.

And who gets to decide that - the actual creator of the content who
understands what the message is about, or a piece of infrastructure
software that treats all messages it receives the same way?

I don't mind the subject-munging that mailman does if the list owner
adds an identifying tag because that's added to the existing header
the composer typed; the original information is still there.

Do you think it would make sense, on most lists, to *replace* the 
subject with (eg) "Subject: Mail from $sender to $listname on $date"?
That's the same sort of thing.

> > Whatever the merits of your arguments about what headers I should be 
> > using
> > to filter which lists, the fact is that taking something the original
> > composer of the mail entered in the To: field and moving it to the Cc:

> But you're making a false assumption here, that the list was in the to 
> line. That's not a safe assumption.

No, I'm not making that assumption at all.

I'm assuming that the person who typed in the message put the list
address where s/he thought it belonged.  I want to *know* where that
person thought it belonged.  I know that the list might be in the
To: line, in the Cc: line, in the Apparently-To: line added by an MTA,
or not reflected in the RFC822 headers at all, and I want to be able
to distinguish those cases.

> it could be in to, cc or bcc. Just 
> as you could be in to, cc or bcc. if you're assuming where the 
> addresses are, you'll break at random occasions when users don't follow 
> your ideas of appropriate. What mailman is doing is standardizing where 
> that stuff ends up on redelivery, so if anything, it's more reliable 
> than the existing system, which is random but assumes a certain 
> behavior.

Whether I put an address in the To: list or the Cc: list or the Bcc:
list when I compose a message is *not* random, but deliberately
chosen.  I don't *want* it "standardized" - it's content-bearing.

FWIW,

Jay