Jonathan Morace <jmorace@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Dave Sill wrote:
>>Unfortunately, if the MTA does [list duplicate elimination], the
>>recipient has no control over it.
>
>This is so dependent on the distributers setup, that it would make sense
>for the recipient to take care of it on their end.
How?
>It isn't reasonable to make senders conform to your standards.
All I want is one copy of each message sent to each list I'm
subscribed to. That's not unreasonable.
>You should be able to use procmail to achieve anything you could do
>with multiple copies.
No, the only reliable way to tell how a message got to me is to look
at the envelope return path. Headers are easily forged or munged, and
sometimes incomplete or just plain wrong.
>Just to clarify, Majordomo already is able to figure this out. I have
>lists not going through resend, therefore delivering only one message to
>each user.
Majordomo without resend (or equivalent) is like a fish out of water.
You lose the ability to moderate, filter administrivia, add headers
and footers, restrict posting to approved posters, etc. That's not
acceptable.
>When sending to multiple lists at a time, it correctly bounces
>to the appropriate list owners.
Maybe to one of them, but but not all of them. If you're handling
bounces, you really want all the list owners involved to get them.
>>OK, then, what if I have a procmail recipe that looks at the envelope
>>return path to properly file list mail? Then the addresses *are*
>>duplicates after expansion, but I *still* want both copies because the
>>headers are different.
>
>This can easily be changed to use the to line to file the message,
>avoiding this problem.
That isn't reliable: consider spam and BCC's for common examples.
-Dave
References:
|
|
