|
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 15 Oct 90 13:43:52 IST |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Mon, 15 Oct 90 09:13:51 SET from <REICHETZ@AWIIMC11> |
Reply-To: |
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 90 09:13:51 SET Christian J. Reichetzeder said:
>Well, get on LSTERN-L: There's a discussion going on - or has been a
>discussion about mailing-loops and the usage of the Sender: field. You
>can expect that many LISTEARNs will not set the Sender: field to the
>listname any more. There're also other changes in the Loopcheck
>heuristics.
>
>Once again: LISTEARN is already different from LISTSERV. Thus not all
>problems are LISTSERV problems (and therefore belong to LSTSRV-L) but
>come from LISTEARN. The appropriate forum is LSTERN-L.
>Christian
great - then where/how does one handle issues of lists that are peered
on some LISTSERV and some LISTEARN nodes ? I guess my incoming list-mail
files will look different than the u.s. ppl., not to speak that LISTEARN
might, for some inexcplicable reason (or bug, they do occur here and
there...) NOT distribute (as due bad loopchecking, for example) a piece
of mail distributed all over the "LIST-world"...Can lists be peered on
"both sides" (LISTSERV and LISTEARN) ? What are the implications of this?
Note - I am NOT trying to restart a political war - but the issues I
raised are a problem (or else, please let me know what the answers are).
/Zvika
|
|
|