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