Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(July 2002)
 

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

Subject: Re: identifying list mail by any appearance in the headers
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier @ ripco . com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:19:43 -0500
To: "list-managers" <list-managers @ greatcircle . com>
References: <200207062030 . g66KUIu14313 @ pop2a . ripco . com> <19212 . 1025988882 @ kanga . nu>

JCL wrote,

| Plus addressing is becoming almost common.

Yes.  It is largely a good thing.

| A decent and steadily rising percentage of my subscribers (I'd guess
currently about 8%) are using
| plus addressing for their subscriptions to my lists, usually of the form:
|   bubba-<listname>@some_domain
|
| eg for this list it might be:
|   claw-list-managers @
 kanga .
 nu
|
| Which isn't quite coopting the list name ala say my subscribing to this
| list as:
|   list-managers @
 kanga .
 nu

Not the second-worst-equals-good argument again.

Couldn't you use claw-listmgrs @
 kanga .
 nu, or since the domain is yours,
listmgrs @
 kanga .
 nu?

If what happened to me was a fluke, consider this variant: you j01n a list as
listname @
 your .
 site or you(+/-)listname @
 your .
 isp .
   Someone else posts, and you
send a private reply under your membership address; the other person filters
for the list on To: or Cc: and, finding it in the folder for the list,
mistakes it for a list post, and (a) chews you out for publicizing personal
matters, (b) replies to the list with quotes from your private message, or (c)
posts something else to the list under the assumption that everybody else has
read your message.  There is no argument in favor of using the exact name of
the list.

| I rate unique plus addressing for list subscriptions as a highly
| recommendable practice that can be very effective in controlling SPAM
| and is one that adapts to current list servers well.

Absolutely.  I'd do it myself were it not for other impediments.  However,
nobody holds a gun to your head to use the list's name verbatim.  Were I still
an active list manager, I would not allow such a su65cription.  In 1996 I'd
have considered a j01n request from listname @
 other .
 site either an attempt to
slip an exploder onto the list without making arrangements first or one to
post disruptively, and I'd have told the sender to get lost.  In 2002 I'd
consider that [or one from user+listname @
 other .
 site, or from
user-listname @
 other .
 site in case of qmail] an honest but short-sighted attempt
at facilitating mail sorting and would respond that the applicant had to
select some less literal designator [and I'd supply a suggestion or too, just
as I proposed "listmgrs" above] and would then be welcome to join the list.

(Just in case anybody still doesn't know, Tom Baurley is on vacation for the
rest of July.  It's very important to him that everyone on list-managers be
told repeatedly.)






Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Header fields (Was: Re: Please prune this list!)
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Next: Re: Header fields (Was: Re: Please prune this list!)
From: Brent Chapman <Brent @ GreatCircle . COM>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: identifying list mail by any appearance in the headers
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Next: Re: identifying list mail by any appearance in the headers
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com