RE: A mailing list protocol

Dave Cridland <> Thu, 06 December 2012 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9266021F8726 for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:36:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2YEiA0iP7W2 for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C926621F86AA for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:36:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1354797367;; s=selector;; bh=SCqSUuabTQlBTBN9atTjOdZEtqDUZP2Dwylg72t2mFg=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=sd+yB4cnD6NLVpy2lA0rz1MTEebmxjOFQlG1Iwzdx2WByvfe1XUXtz6tr6ZqXgKLCLiKWq 6obfVXGwFlGGHxVo/k7Sro9/Jb5dHYCvqP6RwYINTU9rbvb1X0600f7aWCSbvApO0JSxCg BaOxRYKAPhZokrhFDYSdYdGK9hfugug=;
Received: from puncture ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 12:36:07 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
Subject: RE: A mailing list protocol
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <7256.1354797367.419104@puncture>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:36:07 +0000
From: Dave Cridland <>
To: "George, Wes" <>, IETF-Discussion <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:24:58 -0800
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: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:36:09 -0000

On Tue Dec  4 22:19:14 2012, George, Wes wrote:
> Is there an IETF standard format for handling inline quote replies?  
> Is it just not implemented in certain mail clients? 

RFC 3676? (As used here).

It is admittedly primarily useful in simple replies rather than  
quoting (and therefore attribution) from multiple parent messages;  
however that's by far the common case. A further specifcation to  
annotate attribution would be possible, though in principle that  
would be usefully based on the References field.

> 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've not really had a problem with searching for the subject root, in  
general, but I'd be happy to agree despite inexperience with the  
issue that there are standards for reply-mangling of subjects and we  
should note that.

My more common problem is a lack of in-reply-to or references fields  
that I can use for in-thread navigation, which I find particularly  

In general, there are a number of technical standards and protocols  
which are useful, or essential, for IETF participation; documenting  
these in a single location would seem beneficial.