Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(December 2001)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: List-ID
From: Tom Neff <tneff @ panix . com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 00:37:12 -0500
To: List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM

--On Saturday, December 01, 2001 6:36 PM -0500 Charlie Summers <charlie @
lofcom .
com> wrote:
   I understand the logic of your suggestion that the List-* fields will
be appropriated by spam sometime in the future, I just don't understand
your conclusion that because of it they shouldn't be used by legitimate
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
mailing lists.

Charlie's difficulty may stem from the fact that I haven't offered such a conclusion in the three short posts I've submitted on this topic.

I would think your conclusion requires absolute trust in
the List-ID: field...and I don't have absolute trust in _any_ header
field since they can _all_ be forged. If you do, I guess you're bound to
be dissapointed. If you don't...where's the big problem again?

There is no big problem, that's for sure. I merely note parenthetically, in passing so to speak, that List-ID prevents nothing, solves nothing, assures nothing, and simplifies nothing, and that it will be hard to parse meaningfully, difficult to enforce correctness syntactically, widely subject to abuse by spammers, and confusing to most of the community it's foisted on. However, it has a very pretty RFC, and it gives software authors something new to implement and fight about, and the listerati a new stick to beat mere users and working admins with, so I am 100% on board and in favor of it.




Follow-Ups:
  • Re: List-ID
    From: Russ Allbery <rra @ stanford . edu>
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: @ home shutdowns.
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Next: Re: List-ID
From: Russ Allbery <rra @ stanford . edu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: List-ID
From: Tom Neff <tneff @ grassyhill . org>
Next: Re: List-ID
From: Russ Allbery <rra @ stanford . edu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com