From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Feb  5 16:50:36 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA12838
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 16:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from conch.vast.unsw.edu.au (conch.vast.unsw.edu.au [149.171.224.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA12831
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 16:50:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mucket.vast.unsw.edu.au by conch.vast.unsw.edu.au with SMTP id AA27061
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>); Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:50:20 +1100
Received: by mucket.vast.unsw.edu.au (5.65c/client-1.3)
	id AA22899; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:50:19 +1100
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:50:18 +1100 (EST)
From: Julian Jenkins <julianj@vast.unsw.edu.au>
X-Sender: julianj@mucket
To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: List Duplicates 
In-Reply-To: <96Feb5.145941pst.177478@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960206114440.21688p-100000@mucket>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, Bill Fenner wrote:

> In message <199602052243.PAA00505@phaeton.artisoft.com> you write:
> >Point of order: how do I tell which individual addresses in the current
> >headers are or are not in the list addresses also in the current headers?
> 
> I will concede the potential of it being nice to have the To: or cc: lines
> trimmed by the mail server, although it is a relatively expensive operation,
> won't help people for whom multiple addresses map to one, and I sometimes
> *like* to be able to have a conversation "outside" the list using cc:'s;
> list mail comes really slowly for me.
> 
> Just pointing out that different people use mailing lists differently, I
> guess.  But if the FreeBSD lists start using Reply-To: then I will have
> to write some code to remove it, or something, so that I can still bear
> to be subscribed to them.

Is it not possible for the list server to scan the list of To: and CC: 
and not resend to these who have already recieved a copy of the message 
independantly?

Sorry if this has already been suggested but i missed the beginning of 
this discussion.

Julian Jenkins
julianj@vast.unsw.edu.au
kaveman@magna.com.au