RE: A mailing list protocol

"George, Wes" <> Tue, 04 December 2012 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9241B21F8AF8 for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:18:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.108
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.355, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UGJG4rthq-B9 for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98B421F8AF4 for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:18:56 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,217,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="482728522"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 04 Dec 2012 17:18:46 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:18:55 -0500
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: "" <>, S Moonesamy <>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:19:14 -0500
Subject: RE: A mailing list protocol
Thread-Topic: A mailing list protocol
Thread-Index: Ac3SYIJZ1Q2qb4/pQN2q54OlMWJAjAABq2BQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 22:18:57 -0000

> From: [] On Behalf Of
> S Moonesamy
>   (b) replies to messages which use an odd quoting style [2].
> 2.

[WEG] The referenced program doesn't work for anything 2007 or later (aka versions still supported by MS), making it of limited use.

Is there an IETF standard format for handling inline quote replies? Is it just not implemented in certain mail clients? If there isn't a relevant standard, then we have no business whining that people are doing it "wrong", and we should probably get to work defining one, either for use on the client side, or possibly an extension for common mailman software to parse and fix it on the server side to compensate for odd client implementations.

The last thread that talked about how to do email "correctly" focused on the usual bashing of those using outlook or company email addresses, rather than much in the way of helpful advice on how to make it less bad.
[ ]

Browbeating people into changing mail clients will be less than effective, but something that systematically makes it easier to see who is responsible for what comment in a multi-person thread regardless of source email client would be welcome. While we're at it, we could maybe implement a fix for the common problem of mangled subject lines that make it very difficult to sort by thread, and add a server-side filter that removes the legal bilgewater automatically added to some outgoing messages (example will follow in this very message) before sending it to the rest of the list recipients, etc.

I'd support a draft of that nature, but rehashing an old draft about nettiquete 101 is less helpful. A simple reference to the original in the Tao webpage would probably be sufficient to get the behavioral point across, and then we can focus more on the technical problem that we appear to have.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.