From owner-freebsd-chat Thu May 15 09:39:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA28122 for chat-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (joelh@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu [128.52.46.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28115 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12GNU) id MAA26073; Thu, 15 May 1997 12:39:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 12:39:10 -0400 Message-Id: <199705151639.MAA26073@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: perhaps@yes.no CC: chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <199705151403.QAA27442@bitbox.follo.net> (message from Eivind Eklund on Thu, 15 May 1997 16:03:24 +0200 (MET DST)) Subject: Re: Reply-to addresses From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> We reprogram majordomo to recognize that the message had >> "To: joelh@gnu" in the header and not send it to me when it expands >> hackers. Sure, sendmail has already sent a message to me, but we keep >> majordomo from sending it instead of trying to keep sendmail from >> sending it. >NOOOOO! You're ruining my filter! The _only_ reliable way to filter >the FreeBSD lists is on the Sender: line; I've seen things sent to the >lists by Bcc: several times. Hmmm... You mean, the copy sent to you by sendmail isn't filterable, because it doesn't have a Sender: line? Why on earth would anybody send something to the list by bcc? That would mean that replies wouldn't hit the list! >Personally, I like to get a copy of the direct replies to my mails - >couldn't we just have majordomo rewrite the Cc: line to only contain >the mailing list if the mailing list was there, and reproduce the >original Cc: as X-Cc: ? >This will break anybody asking to be 'kept Cc:'ed', but nothing else, >as far as I can tell. But getting multiple copies of messages is the behaviour we're trying to stop! This whole exercise is futile without it. Besides, the idea of having a small group of participants Cc:'ed to each other is a good one; on busy days, I can have an entire discussion with groups quickly, even though our discussion might not hit the list until next week. Thoughts, everybody? Is this proposal going to break anybody else? Happy hacking, joelh -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the Free Software Foundation's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped