Mangled and non-mangled TUHS mail lists
gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net
Wed Oct 4 07:59:46 AEST 2017
On 10/03/2017 12:43 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> It's a valid viewpoint, but one of its consequences is that there is no
> straight way of relating multiple copies of the original message. Not
> only in the somewhat shady case of personal reply+list followup, but
> also in the quite legitimate case of posting the same message to
> multiple lists.
You bring up a valid point. Something I've not specifically thought
about before, mainly because I've not wanted to maintain a MLM.
> A related situation is list managers that act as 2-way gateways from/to
> Usenet groups. Mailman can do that, and when it does it rewrites the
> Message-ID. The result is that all threads with mixed participants
> (posting both via Unsenet and via email) are broken.
I see no reason that the hypothetical MLM that I'm alluding to couldn't
re-use the message ID or at least cite it in the References: header
rather than making something arbitrary up.
I think that would help with the problem that you're describing.
> This is why I stopped reading the core GNU lists (help-gnu-emacs et al.)
> when they adopted Mailman.
I'm sorry. That makes me believe that the list has failed in it's
purpose of enabling communications. :-(
Grant. . . .
unix || die
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3717 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the TUHS