Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: gopher: August 2002:
[gopher] FW: [EDev] Re: List-Id

[gopher] FW: [EDev] Re: List-Id

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gopher] FW: [EDev] Re: List-Id
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:37:08 -0500
Reply-to: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx

----- Forwarded message from Chris Scott <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----

From: Chris Scott <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:36:00 -0400
Reply-To: ecartis-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: John Goerzen <ecartis-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EDev] Re: List-Id

Hi John,

Wednesday, August 7, 2002, 2:39:29 PM, you wrote:

JG> It seems that recent Ecartis is generating List-ID instead of List-Id. 
JG> Ideas?

The earliest snap that I could find the List-ID header being implemented
(ecartis-1.0.0-snap20011216), it was done at List-ID (both i and d
capitalized).  Prior to that, the X-List-ID header is all I could find and
that too had both i and d capitalized.

It looks like RFC 2919 implements the List-ID header (not RFC 2369).  It
refers to it mostly as List-Id but also as List-ID.  The one part that,
IMHO, seems like it should be followed is:

The syntax of the List-Id header follows:

   list-id-header = "List-ID:" [phrase] "<" list-id ">" CRLF

Those more familiar w/the RFCs can correct me since I don't know much about
them, just what I read ;-)

Chris Scott
Host Orlando, Inc.

----- End forwarded message -----

John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>    GPG: 0x8A1D9A1F

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]
  • [gopher] FW: [EDev] Re: List-Id, John Goerzen <=