[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       list-managers
Subject:    Re:  RFC 2142
From:       "Roger Fajman" <RAF () CU ! NIH ! GOV>
Date:       1998-06-21 3:39:58
Message-ID: 199806210336.UAA14786 () honor ! greatcircle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> Ok, so I don't understand what all the fuss over RFC 2142 is about.
>
> This is what it says:
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> 6.  MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX
>
>    Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop
>    requests and other meta-queries can be sent.
>
>    For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is:
>
>       <LIST@DOMAIN>
>
>    there MUST be the administrative mailbox name:
>
>       <LIST-REQUEST@DOMAIN>
>
>    Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo and
>    Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with the
>    software on that system -- usually the name of the software -- rather
>    than a particular list on that system.  Use of such mailbox names
>    requires participants to know the type of list software employed at
>    the site.  This is problematic.  Consequently:
>
>       LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED,
>       INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE
>       MAILBOX NAMES.
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> There is *no* statement here that the -request address must be an
> automated MLM!  All it says is that there must be a -request
> administrative address "to which add/drop requests and other
> meta-queries can be sent."
>
> It seems to me that Listserv's behavior of having a human contact
> at the -request address is entirely consistent with this RFC.
> It might be *preferable* that this be the MLM, but I see nothing
> in this text that disallows using the human contact address, especially
> with an autoresponder.
>
> So I, for one, see no problem here.  My reading is that Listserv's
> behavior is allowed by RFC 2142.

I read RFC 2142 when it was still an Internet Draft and my interpretation
was the same as the one above.  What LISTSERV does is not in conflict.
Otherwise I would have complained.  I really thing that RFC 2142 was
intended to document current practice and not to break new ground.

P.S. - In addition to the ietf list, there is an ietf-announce list.
It allows you to just get the announcements (including new Internet
Drafts) without the flame wars.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]