Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 22/07/2020 07:04, Keith Moore wrote:

> On 7/22/20 1:49 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>>> I love the format's extensibility but I suspect there's a
>>> point of diminishing returns.   The message header has
>>> become a garbage dumping ground, and it might need some
>>> cleaning up.
>> Agreed.  But also agree with Dave that it is difficult to
>> imagine how cleaning up such a dump (even if there were
>> consensus on that characterization) could be within scope for
>> emailcore.   It probably is in scope for this list [1] but I
>> hope we
>> don't need to separate emailcore to a separate list in order to
>> get anything done there.   ...Another decision I hope we can
>> defer until after the BOF.
>
> I will certainly agree that there is no immediately obvious fix to the 
> header garbage dump problem.
>
> As for the list, if emailcore goes on for more than a few weeks, I 
> think it could be problematic to devote the ietf-smtp list exclusively 
> to that narrow set of topics.  ietf-smtp has served since the early 
> 1990s as a general discussion on SMTP-related topics with even that 
> scope interpreted somewhat widely.   There's a lot of inertia around 
> treating the list that way, and it seems like conflicts over the scope 
> of the discussion are inevitable if the same list tries to serve both 
> purposes.
>
I am open to suggestions whether or not EMAILCORE should have its own 
mailing list. But I think until the BOF is over, we can use this 
([e-mail]) mailing list, as most of the people who care are 
already subscribed to it.
>
> More subtly, some solutions are not within the scope of emailcore even 
> if the topic or problem is.
>
> So my recommendation is to use a separate list for emailcore.
>
> For what it's worth, when I was musing about the harm done by email 
> header pollution, I didn't expect that the solution was likely to fit 
> within emailcore's scope.
>
> Keith
>
>