On 30 Jul 1993 23:27:22 GMT Bill Harvey said:
>This particular can o' worms was opened
>On Fri, 30 Jul 1993 17:22:44 -0500.  And we can blame it on "F.  Scott
>Ophof" <[log in to unmask]>.
 
Yes, in both aspects you mention below...  :-/
 
>It's not exactly clear which point you're trying to address.  It seems
>like you raised two issues:  (1) Minimizing the inconvenience of receiving
>multiple copies of a message,  and (2) minimizing the chance of dropping
>people out of the discussion when a poster edits the xpost list.
 
Actually both, with (2) being imho the most important one.  Even
though (1) was the "irritating" one for me, especially because it
was caused by myself...
 
>But as far as (1) goes, Usenet has adopted the method of enforcing
>valid Message-Ids, and eliminating dups that way.  I've always had a
>...
>MB's MsgId option.  That wouldn't eliminate the *traffic*.  But at
>least people wouldn't have to read/discard all the extra notes.
 
Of course it could be done on the LISTSERV side...
BUT!  It would quite probably increase overall processing in a
non-trivial number of LISTSERVs, and definitely increase it between
the relevant LISTSERVS.  Heck, network traffic might well increase
more due to extra cross-checking than the decrease in redundant
items...
 
>(like Eric said) to pick a list and make everyone subscribe who wants to
>monitor the discussion.
 
Yeah.  I'll do that next time...  :-)
 
>But that can be inconvenient.  I've only had to do that once or twice,
>but I do remember feeling put-out when it happened.  :-)
 
I don't mind forwarding & CC-ing, as long as I know who to...
 
 
Regards.
$$\