From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:59:46 -0600 Subject: Mangled and non-mangled TUHS mail lists In-Reply-To: <20171003184345.rout343iwjwc57e4@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> References: <209ed252-49ff-aff4-dd0a-614397907418@tnetconsulting.net> <20171003140853.IrkS4%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <472d5571-8093-e02c-4478-a97accc8e632@tnetconsulting.net> <20171003184345.rout343iwjwc57e4@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> Message-ID: On 10/03/2017 12:43 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > It's a valid viewpoint, but one of its consequences is that there is no > straight way of relating multiple copies of the original message. Not > only in the somewhat shady case of personal reply+list followup, but > also in the quite legitimate case of posting the same message to > multiple lists. You bring up a valid point. Something I've not specifically thought about before, mainly because I've not wanted to maintain a MLM. > A related situation is list managers that act as 2-way gateways from/to > Usenet groups. Mailman can do that, and when it does it rewrites the > Message-ID. The result is that all threads with mixed participants > (posting both via Unsenet and via email) are broken. I see no reason that the hypothetical MLM that I'm alluding to couldn't re-use the message ID or at least cite it in the References: header rather than making something arbitrary up. I think that would help with the problem that you're describing. > This is why I stopped reading the core GNU lists (help-gnu-emacs et al.) > when they adopted Mailman. I'm sorry. That makes me believe that the list has failed in it's purpose of enabling communications. :-( -- Grant. . . . unix || die -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3717 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: