this sounds to me as if you could set up a horrendous endless loop with this setup? timbo:D At 04:12 PM 2/3/97 -0600, Randy Holder sent a message saying: >Hope it's ok to ask this here and it is not a faq. I tried checking the faq >and didn't see it. > >Ok here's the situation: > >I manage two listserv lists; both are closed to the public and are for our >staff. List A is the larger more general list. List B is a specialized >group of staff and therefore is a subset of list A. I want persons on List >B to receive posts from List A in addition to normal posts. So, I've >subscribed List B to List A. This eliminates the need to subscribe new >hires to both lists. > >This works well except that when List B distributes a post that was >originally sent to List A, it replaces the reply-to: header with its own >reply-to address. So no one on list B can tell which list the post came >from. That causes another problem. If someone on list B replies to the >post, it only get's distributed on list B. > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >So in summary here's what I'm hoping to achieve: >The LIST-B address is subscribed to LIST-A. > >#1) A post to LIST-A goes to subscribers on both LIST-A and LIST-B. >-This works fine. > >#2) A post to LIST-A shows that it's from LIST-A to subscribers that >receive it through LIST-B. >-Reply-to: currently shows that the message is from List-B. > >#3) A reply to a post on List-A goes to subscribers on both lists. >-A reply from a person on List-B currently goes to List-B subscribers only >not to the larger List-A. > >#4) A post to LIST-B goes to LIST-B subscribers only. >-Works fine > >#5) A reply to LIST-B goes to LIST-B subscribers only. >-Works fine. > > >I know this sounds like I'm a raving madman but, this is my best attempt to >describe the situation via e-mail. This method almost works. If I could >just get #2 and #3 to work, it would be a perfect method. Suggestions? >Please respond to me direct. Thanks. > >Randy H. >Computing Services >University of Arkansas >