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