--On 10. desember 2007 15:22 -0800 Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2. The mailing lists described in 2821 are very simple redistribution >> lists, as opposed to the "fairly sophisticated forums for group >> communication" [2919] described in these documents. For simple >> aliasing and redistribution lists, I think the "MUST be left >> unchanged" is appropriate. > > The key point is that this is redistribution prior to final delivery. > Sophisticated list processors in effect submit a new message to the > transport > infrastructure and do not fall under this prohibition.
Would it be a reasonable thing to add a note saying that "there exist things that call themselves lists but are doing processing other than what is described here; such lists should be described as delivery followed by a submission, and alterations are therefore outside the rules"?
Seems like a reasonable addition to me.
I'd also be happy with losing the normative language about what lists do apart from replacing MAIL FROM; I don't see an upside to having the prohibition in here for lists, since it doesn't match widespread practice. (I do want to keep the prohibition for aliases!)
So keep the MUST for aliases but lose it for lists? I could live with that too but it would probably force a recycle. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf