On June 23, 2004 at 09:45, Jeff Marshall wrote: > Your mailing list server is now sending all of the List headers (see RFC= > 2369 at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2369.html and RFC 2919 at =20= > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2919.html), which is great. The particular = > header we've been supporting to sort the messages is the List-Post header.= > Although we should probably take a look at giving priority to the = > List-Id header (that's the only one in the newer RFC) since there are a = > few fringe cases where the List-Post header doesn't apply.
The problem with keying of the List-Id header is that it may be difficult to determine what the list address is. The list-id uses domain name only syntax and not mail address syntax, and RFC-2912 does not define any explicit mapping relationship between list-id and the list address. Therefore, heuristics would be needed. I have observed different styles of list-ids used, so developing such heuristics may take work and may still generate wrong results. I think if mail-archive wants to leverage list-id, it will need to change how it organizes its mail archives. Instead of using the list address as the "root" of a list's archive, the list-id is used instead. If a list does not define a list-id, then mail-archive would assume one based upon the list address. For example, for the list address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" that does not define the List-Id header, mail-archive would use "some-list.list-id.example.com". --ewh _______________________________________________ Gossip mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jab.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gossip
