From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 10 17:25:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA28455 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DATAPLEX.NET (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA28431 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 199.183.109.242 by DATAPLEX.NET with SMTP (MailShare 1.0fc5); Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:25:18 -0600 Message-ID: Date: 10 Jun 1996 19:25:05 -0500 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" Subject: Re(2): Ahhhhhhhhhh! To: "FreeBSD Hackers" X-Mailer: Mail*Link PT/Internet 1.6.0 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Jordan writes: > For #1, I'm actually going to ask our long-suffering postmaster if > there's any way for us to kill cross-postings automatically. Quite > frankly, if something is sent to any of the major FreeBSD mailing > lists (hackers/stable/current) then I think that it's already quite [I won't send a copy of this directly to Jordan because he will get it on "hackers"] There is an automated solution that accomplishes the same thing without excluding anyone. The major complaint is that since you are subscribed to all three lists, you get 3 or 4 copies of the same message. The solution is to avoid having yourself subscribed to multiple lists. What you wish to do is subscribe to the single list that is the set union of the various lists. Consider this logical (not actual implementation) scheme. There are 8 lists. 1. Just stable 2. Just current 4. Just hackers 3. stable and current 5. stable and hackers 6. current and hackers 7. stable, current, and hackers 8. None of the above Each subscriber would belong to exactly one list. Each message that comes in is sent to a) 4 sublists if addressed to only one list b) 6 sublists if addressed to two lists c) 7 sublists if addressed to all three lists. This scheme could be expanded to more lists but the complexity doubles for each additional list and I expect that these three could be sufficient to handle the vast majority of the redundant traffic. -- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net -- ...computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949