You guys are beating me to the punch. I have hooked into
majordomo my "list-handler" software, which does neat and funny
things to these headers you are talking about.
Basically list handler takes care of bounced mail (removing the offending
address from the list file and placing it in a holding pattern). It also
will check new addresses to see if it can mail to them, but I like the
majordomo solution better. It does all this by use of the "Return-Receipt-To"
and a couple of "X-" headers, which is why I'd like to enter the discussion.
> # 6) Remove any "Return-Receipt-To:" field.
> I wouldn't remove the field if it's there. Somebody had to make a
> special effort to get it there in the first place, and if they really
> want all that mail back, so be it...
I would agree with this. I use it to check addresses for validity. I am aware
that lots of non-compliant-to-whatever mailers don't respond to it, but
I have a plan for that. I'd really like to see this become a standard, myself.
> # 7) Add a field on this form:
> # X-Mailing-List: [list name/description]*[sequence number] <[list address]>
> That's not a bad idea. Someday I might implement it! :-)
It is a great idea. I do this only to have the actual list name (like the majordomo
concept) in the header of the message. Mine only looks like:
X-Mailing-List: <list name>
But I like the sequence number and the address...that way a bounced user who
is "restored" to the list (happens automatically in list handler) could recover
all the messages he or she missed.
I also added a
in the field of the header. That way, software could tell which address the message
was originally destined for (after a few list exploders it gets pretty difficult
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
gov dave @
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.