On Tue, 3 Aug 1993 19:10:39 -0400 Chris Lewis <[log in to unmask]> said: >But what's the sense of sending the 200 copies to the originator >instead? They're unlikely to have been the originator's fault either. Ok, so what should LISTSERV do? Send 200 copies to the entire list? Send 200 copies to the list owner, who isn't responsible about the incident either? Quietly throw the message away, with the result that you'd never have known your FAQ wasn't being posted? There is not perfect solution, I just thought it would be better to send 200 copies to a single person than to the whole list. >By insisting on adding a date-based bit to the body of the message, it >becomes impossible for you to tell that there's no need to send the >message because was a duplicate of what was sent yesterday. I meant the date would be inserted in the FAQ, not in all messages. The person posting the FAQ presumably has a procedure to do so. Just add code to insert 'Date posted:' at the top of the FAQ. >Ideally, LISTSERV should be able to tell when a message comes from >USENET Yes, but it can't. >Frankly, I think the duplicate acknowledge is rather silly anyways. If >the message got through the first time, there's no particular need to >tell the originator about the subsequent duplicates. Just drop the durn >thing. And you'd never have known your FAQ wasn't posted. Anyway, as long as you insist on applying usenet logic to mailing lists we aren't getting anywhere. Duplicates are normal in usenet - normal, and often desired for redundancy. On a mailing list, duplicates are an anomaly and often one of the visible symptoms of a serious configuration problem. You don't want to dump them silently for the same reason that you wouldn't want to implant something in your brain removing any and all pain you might ever feel. Eric