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