Eric Thomas <ERIC@LEPICS>
Fri, 21 Jul 89 12:37:19 GMT
|
>I disagree.
Please reread the numerous debates held on this topic in the past. I will
not comment on anything that has already been said.
>ALSO, "Reply-To:" would not be necessary, because a simple REPLY command
>would then reply to the sender,
Which, in your example, points to an error-delivery mailbox.
>and REPLY ALL would reply to the list.
and to the error-delivery mailbox, or, assuming there was no "Sender:",
to the list and the individual who originated the message, who would then
get 2 copies.
>This would solve the annoying problem of postings stating "reply to me"
>where the sender doesn't insert a "Reply-To:",
As you said yourself, this annoying problem can be solved by the person
typing "Reply-To: <his userid>" rather than "please reply to me as I am
not subscribed to any of the lists I am sending this message to", which
is much shorter and also more efficient.
>And since everyone would get an identical copy of each posting, the
>DISTx code might be much simpler, and it might also be much easier to
>save more network bandwidth.
Please elaborate on this. I'd be interested to know how this would reduce
the load, given that the mail headers would then reach an average of 30
lines rather than the usual Date/From/Sender/To/Subject that LISTSERV
presently generates. And oh, by the way, you don't need LISTSERV to
implement a list like that. The Crosswell mailer will do it just fine,
and more efficiently.
Eric
|
|
|