From owner-freebsd-advocacy Sat Nov 23 2:52:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790BA37B401 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC9A43E91 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:52:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0024.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.24] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18FXu3-00049g-00; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:52:47 -0800 Message-ID: <3DDF5AB4.E71E4E67@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:38:44 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anthony Atkielski Cc: FreeBSD Advocacy Subject: Re: FreeBSD on the desktop (was: TheRegister article on Hotmail) References: <20021121161453.GA69019_submonkey.net@ns.sol.net> <20021122234047.GB60785@wantadilla.lemis.com> <014201c29296$f9cc4a20$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20021123023624.GA97416@gothmog.gr> <017101c2929b$18ef7e50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20021123033041.GA3884@gothmog.gr> <019901c292a3$b9c31690$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20021123040925.GB4320@gothmog.gr> <01a201c292a7$23338d50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3DDF2A12.31DABCF5@mindspring.com> <01dc01c292c6$e31cca90$0a00000a@atkielski.com> ¤æ¿¿ìë¿¿ü¿¿á  eI (øf ( "P ( æ¿¿CSß;pæ¿¿Àå¿¿ ±( Èð `ç¿¿ ³ð 0À øå¿¿ æ¿¿Ìæ¿¿?(tæ¿¿¿ð8ç¿¿u(?® (àÑ (Dç¿¿á (Ò ( à aÒ( ç¿¿ àÑ (= üæ¿¿6Ò(?® (àÑ (Ò ( (ìë¿¿ÜQç¿¿¹¤( ç¿¿ àÑ (= ¿ð?¤(ìë¿¿lQìë¿¿ (ç¿¿ t (    §P lü¿¿ÿ¿ðì¿¿ <3DDF4582.91B6820B@mindspr! ing.com> <021601c292d8$97fc49c0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Why? > > Because the sender is one of the "all" to which the "Reply all" is sent. Duplicate supression is a function of the receiver. > > So that if the sender is not a subscriber to > > the list, they don't se your response to their > > message? > > If they were not subscribers to the list, they would not have seen the > message to which they are replying, and to which I am responding in turn. Not true. A frequent use of mailing lists is to: 1) Have a problem. 2) Search list archives for a solution to the problem. 3) If a solution is found in the archives, STOP. 4) If there is no solution in the archives, but there are other people with the probem, contact them directly, and see how they solved it (if they did). 5) If the other people found a solution, and they share it with you, STOP (Note: subsequent people will repeat this process, until the people with the solution post it to the list to avoid being pestered). 6) Post a request for a fix to a mailing list *without necessarily subscribing to the list* 7) Receive an answer to the question, which is sent both to them directly, and o the list, for the purposes of being archived for future people with the problem. Note that in step 7, the respondant sends to the list and to the original sender, both, without the orignl sender being on the list. In the case of cross-posting, etc., it's possible to have a set of lists [A,B,C], and a set of users ith list membership a[A,B], b[A,C], c[B,C], all involved in the discussion, due to an initial cross-post. > > It is the job of the receiving system to > > perform duplicate suppression. > > I guess my FreeBSD UNIX receiving system doesn't do its job, then. I guess you haven't configured it correctly, then. If you are using POP3 against a FreeBSD mail server, then configure it to use procmail, and maintain a rolling archive of "Message-Id:" field contents, and suppress duplicate deliveries, on a per-user basis: # weed out duplicates :0 Whc: msgid.lock | formail -D 8192 $PMDIR/msgid.cache :0 a: $DELETE See also: Procmail Mini-Tutorial by Tony Nugent http://www.sektorn.mooo.com/era/procmail/tony.html It's generally accepted that this is actually the job of the MUA (in this case, OutLook Express is failing to provide this feature for you, for whatever reason; most likely, it's an overabundance of the property "suck"). The reason for this is that suppression of duplicates prevents you from greating MUA filter rules that do proper archiving of messages and/or delivery into list archive and standard mailboxes, as a result of their method of arriving at the recipient (e.g. keying of the existance of a "Sender:" or a "List-ID:" or "List-Unsubscribe:" or other header). > > If it's not (it usually is not, for a myriad of > > very good reasons), then it's the job of your > > mail client and your mail client's filters to > > deal with it. > > If I am separately addressed and addressed as part of a mailing list, I > _expect_ to receive two copies of the message. The problem is with the > sender specifying both me and the mailing list as recipients; I imagine many > senders are using "Reply all" or its equivalent. Your problem. Not the sender's problem. You could argue that it's also a mailing list manager issue, since the mailing list manager could note that the "To:" or "Cc:" line contained an address which mtched that of a known list member for the message, and suppress delivery. However, this has two problems: 1) The same problem with non-archival delivery that should be handled on behalf of the user by the MUA; at a bare minimum, this would have to be a subscriber controllable option, since most sae people *do not want the behaviour you want*. 2) Doing this is computationally expensive, and the general rule in client/server software design is to push all the processing you possible can off onto the client, since clients outnumber servers by a wide margin, and the left-over 200MHz Pentium 2 box you are given to build a mail server with has far less balls than the 3GHz boxes sitting on the desks of the VP of sales, the VP of marketing, or the CEO's, CTO's, or even the technical writer's desk -- or even the 600MHz boxes they stick you with in engineering, because you don't "rate" a faster box, and since when is compiling the company's product as important as minimizing the browser containing porn, when someone walks into the sales manager's office? If you are going to this much trouble to hack the crap out of your list manager software, you'd be *much* better off addressing things like the ability to send email to a list *minus* specific people, and oher features that are requested a lot more than duplicate suppression at the server instead of at the client. > > Why do you have to do that? THe "To:" or "Cc:" > > field contains the list name. > > No, it contains the address of the sender of the post to which I'm replying. > The headers do not specify a "Reply-To:" address, and the "From:" field is > filled with the address of the person who posted the message. Thus, when I > reply, the To: field is filled with the address of the poster, not the > address of the list. The error is not in the mail client, it is in the > mailing list software. The error is in the use of temil client, who used "Reply to Sender" button, rather than t non-existant (because it's useless) "Reply to List" button, or the "Reply to All" button that they should have used, instead. > > I guess you need to spring for the full version > > of Outlook to do that: cost of using a feature-poor > > mail client. > > I'm not aware of any "full version" of Outlook. "Outlook", as oppoed to "Outlook Express". > In any case, I should not wish to change the priority of headers in > determining how the reply address is obtained. The current behavior > conforms to the RFCs, and that's fine with me. Then lump it, because so does the mailing list management software, and that's fine with everybody else. 8-). > > You should probably point that out to the person > > whose private email you sent to the list, in case > > they are not a list subscriber and didn't see this > > message, and appologize. > > This is a discussion forum, not an exchange of love letters. In other words, you are an unrepentant poster-of-private-email, rather than an accidental poster-of-prviate-email. Therefore the rest of us should consider that you will not honor a confidence, before sending you private email. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message