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