Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:10:05 -0500

I read the first draft of this document, and wondered:
Does this propose to change IETF behavior on list management, so that the
name of the list (usually same as working group) is not put in the Subject:
using the feature of mailman that does this?

When it was just a draft, it was just speculation.

Now that the IESG is considering this draft, I want to ask:
Is that what you have in mind?

I think having the IETF list traffic have the solicitation class keyword
marked appropriately is a good idea.

I think having every email program on the planet become capable of filtering
on this keyword is a good idea.

I think having every email program on the planet become capable of
displaying this field when it is not empty has some value, but I'm not sure
what the tradeoffs are when the display is small, as on a PDA or mobile
phone.

However, until we get the latter two accomplished, I want the list manager
to mark the Subject: with the name of the list.

I don't know about you, but what I have today (very popular email program
from a gigantic company and very cool cellphone/PDA combo thingy that works
pretty darn nice for email) WILL NOT WORK WELL FOR ME if Subject is not
marked.  One does not have filters, and does not have a way to display an
arbitrary header field.  One has filters, but I don't see a filter mechanism
for "Solicitation Class", and I don't see that key word in the fields I can
display, although there appears to be a way to define your own field so
maybe that would work.  Dunno, but unless it works at least as well as
marking Subject, I don't want to get rid of that feature.

So, I ask that the author of the draft state his intentions with respect to
IETF list management, and that such an intention form part of the
consideration of the IETF on what to do with the draft.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-announce-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:35 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Subject: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At
> Best' to Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the
> following document:
> 
> - 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best '
>    <draft-malamud-subject-line-02.txt> as an Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2005-03-22.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malamud-subject-line-02.txt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:43:35 -0800 (PST)

Hi Brian -

> using the feature of mailman that does this?

That isn't the specific purpose of this draft: it argues that "labels"
such as "ADV:" are not good in the subject line.

There is another draft which argues against the use of mailing list
tags in the subject header and, my personal opinion, is that document
should also be published as an RFC.

See draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00 for more details.

<snip>

> to mark the Subject: with the name of the list.

That's why I'm not specifically dealing with that issue.

<snip>

> consideration of the IETF on what to do with the draft.

No, that is not the intention of this draft.  I am dealing specifically
with policy-mandated subject line labelling.

Regards,

Carl

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:02:06 -0500

The document does not discuss the type of mailing list subject labels 
that you're referring to.

I'm arguing that a better title of the document would be

     Legislated Labels in Email Subject Headers Considered
     Ineffective At Best

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]