Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:37:08 -0500
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] FW: [EDev] Re: List-Id
Message-ID: <20020807193708.GB21935@complete.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


----- Forwarded message from Chris Scott <chris@hostorlando.com> -----

From: Chris Scott <chris@hostorlando.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:36:00 -0400
Reply-To: ecartis-dev@ecartis.org
To: John Goerzen <ecartis-dev@ecartis.org>
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.
http://www.hostorlando.com/


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

-- 
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>    GPG: 0x8A1D9A1F    www.complete.org