Missing -request Address (RFC2142)

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Subetha doesn't generate a <listname>-request address 

per RFC 2142 - "6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX"
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2142 - ) this is required.
------- Additional comments from Jeff Schnitzer Wed Jul 25 10:54:42 -0700 2007 
-------

This is probably never going to happen.  List-management-by-email is a relic of
the pre-www internet.  It's also a terrible idea since (as typically
implemented) it encourages sending passwords to addresses similar to the list
distribution address, with predictable results.
------- Additional comments from Martin Marcher Wed Jul 25 12:36:35 -0700 2007 
-------

imho this does not only refer to automated requests but also to the same
requests -owner Receives.

I was refering to it so that -owner and -request do refer to the list owner. 
Since I don't know another RFC that specifies addresses for a Mailing List
personally I do often refer to -request to get at least an error message telling
me where to mail to (had bad experience and from a user point of view, I like it
to be as easy as possible to reach a human being behind the list) - has nothing
to do with automated requests by.

For Reference (and not ignorance :) I copied the relevant part here:
6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX


   Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop
   requests and other meta-queries can be sent.

   For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is:

      <LIST@DOMAIN>

   there MUST be the administrative mailbox name:

      <LIST-REQUEST@DOMAIN>

   Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo and
   Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with the
   software on that system -- usually the name of the software -- rather
   than a particular list on that system.  Use of such mailbox names
   requires participants to know the type of list software employed at
   the site.  This is problematic.  Consequently:

      LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED,
      INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE
      MAILBOX NAMES.
------- Additional comments from Jeff Schnitzer Wed Jul 25 12:40:20 -0700 2007 
-------

So would you like an automated response with a URL to the web management 
interface?

That seems quite reasonable.
------- Additional comments from Martin Marcher Wed Jul 25 12:43:01 -0700 2007 
-------

Either that or simply forward -owner AND -request to the mail specified as list
owner. Nothing special, as the Web interface is kicks ass (am I allowed to say
that here?) anyway.

Just something so that old habbited list users won't get drawn away from subetha
by this.
------- Additional comments from Jon Stevens Fri Jul 27 01:49:55 -0700 2007 
-------

I vote for just a URL. I hate that -owner is a spam haven. See the other bug 
report on that topic.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by lhori...@gmail.com on 4 Jun 2009 at 11:02