|
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 16 Jul 1993 14:51:53 +0200 |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Thu,
15 Jul 1993 20:54:22 -0400 from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
< [log in to unmask]> |
Reply-To: |
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 1993 20:54:22 -0400 "F. Scott Ophof"
<[log in to unmask]> said:
> - MUAs could make use of its presence and value in for example their
> reply and/or mail functions. It should not be a function of a MUA to
> add this header. (But see note 1)
That is all fine for people who use the latest version of a sophisticated
program, but in the real world this isn't so, at least not when the topic
of the list is unrelated to computers and the typical subscriber doesn't
know that the MUA, MTA and "the computer" are not the same thing.
> - All MLMs should refuse items-submitted-for-distribution which contain
> this header. I'm assuming this should not be the way for MLM X to
> tell MLM Y to distribute the item. And if some person submits a
> posting including this header, then that item could be seen as
> "illegal". (But see note 1)
This would make it impossible to have hierarchies of lists, or local
redistributions.
> - An item may have zero or more such headers (and/or addresses on such
> lines). This refers to the possibility of an item being distributed
> by more than one list. (Shaky... Useful?)
Joe posts to list X, Jack gets a copy with one header pointing to X. Jack
forwards to list Y, Jack's MUA had no reason to remove the field. The
subscribers of list Y get two such headers, which one is the right one?
Where should the replies go?
As you can see, these simple solutions do not offer much improvement over
what we have today. You have to be more ambitious and devise a system
which can keep track of the history of a posting. And it must not require
any MUA or MTA change, because realistically this isn't going to happen
and anything that depends on all MUA's or MTA's taking specific action is
going to create a BIG mess in no time.
Eric
|
|
|