From owner-freebsd-chat  Mon May 12 04:35:52 1997
Return-Path: <owner-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA14047
          for chat-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 1997 04:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from diablo.ppp.de (diablo.ppp.de [193.141.101.34])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA14042
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 12 May 1997 04:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from papillon.lemis.com by diablo.ppp.de with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0wQtDM-000QeSC; Mon, 12 May 97 13:24 MET DST
Received: (grog@localhost) by papillon.lemis.com (8.8.4/8.6.12) 
       id PAA00332; Mon, 12 May 1997 15:47:00 +0800 (CST)
From: grog@FreeBSD.ORG
Message-Id: <199705120747.PAA00332@papillon.lemis.com>
Subject: Re: Reply-to addresses
In-Reply-To: <21177.863300383@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "May 10, 97 02:39:43 pm"
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:46:58 +0800 (CST)
Cc: dufault@hda.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Organisation: 	LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, 36325 Feldatal, Germany
Phone: 	        +49-6637-919123
Fax:            +49-6637-919122
Reply-to: grog@FreeBSD.ORG (Greg Lehey)
WWW-Home-Page:  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~grog
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Jordan K. Hubbard writes:
>> Yes, but you just did what Joerg complained about: cc'd me even
>> though you know I'm on the list.
>
> See how easy it is to do?  We need auto-pruning. :-)

Sure, here I'm doing a group reply, and I automatically copy you and
Peter twice.  How else should I do it?  If I just send it to -chat,
it's not immediately apparent to whom I'm replying, especially if I
don't have a "<name> writes" line at the beginning.

This is really a mail delivery problem: since each message has an ID,
it should be possible to avoid delivering a message ID more than once
per site.  Yes, I know that sendmail doesn't do things like that, but
that doesn't mean it shouldn't.  The alternative, which is probably
easier to handle, is to have the mail reader recognize duplicates and
optionally eliminate them.

Comments?

Greg