At 11:21 5/5/95, Bob Snyder wrote:
>> What? This message is being sent direct to you (Mr. Snyder) with a Cc to
>> the List. Are you claiming that the copy that is delivered to the list will
>> NOT have your Email Address on it or that the existence of your Email
>> Address on the To Header does NOT document that a copy was sent direct to
>> you? What I am asking is for a way that you (and all other users) can
>
>Actually, that (the second clause) is what I'm saying. The To and CC lines
>usually represent where mail is going, but not always. That's controlled by
>the SMTP envelope addresses. I can see at least one kind of denial of service
>attack that could use this feature to prevent people on the list from
>receiving certain mail. Not a big problem generally, but I feel the solution
>should be either on the mail reader end or in user education about doing a
>"Reply-All."
>
I can see how the denial of service would work giving your comment (it
would require going direct to the SMTP server as opposed to using a MUA).
Even this would not insure a denial of service since the suppression of the
MD copy would be at the user's option not and not automatic (even if the
List-Owner set the Suppress-Dupes setting as the list default, the user
could still override by resetting his subscription entry.
>The bigger problem is that this is setting up user state, and complicates the
>mail delivery setup. Right now, majordomo hands the message off to the Mail
>Transport Agent, pointing to an alias that includes all the users of the list
>on it. Setting up flags for mail to this user only on this or that would pull
>a great deal of that complexity into majordomo.
>
I acknowledge this problem. When I made my suggestions, I neglected to take
into consideration the Lean&Mean nature of Majordomo (as opposed to the
other List Managers).
>> Please reread the suggestion. I am saying that I want a way to STAY
>> subscribed while not being sent the mail. This capability already exists in
>> LISTSERV via the Mail/NoMail setting (the third value of which is Digest
>> which sends Digests as opposed to individual Messages). This also allows
>> for the extended version where the switch can be set to automatically
>> revert to Mail on a designated date without user intervention.
>
>I read it the first time. I'm not sure I understand the concept of being
>subscribed to a list but not receiving mail, when the only user option is to
>be on the list or not as is the case with majordomo. I can see possibly
>usefulness in LISTSERV's case, since it has a lot of settings that would have
>to be reset were you to unsubscribe.
>
>I don't see a strong need for an automatically restarting subscription. If
>you can turn yourself off, you should be able to turn yourself back on when
>you get back/more time/whatever caused you to leave.
>
Upon further thought, I can see some justice in your comment. In my
personal case (as a Eudora MUA user), I have the ability to generate both
the unsub and sub at the same time and tag the sub message to be sent
during the first send run after a designated time & date (ie: It sits in
Eudora's Out queue until this time). The only disadvantage is that there is
no way to get resubscribed before the first reconnect so as to have mail
waiting (in the case where the reason for the unsub is due to lack of
access to the net to read the mail).
I just like to take the larger view and do not expect everyone to have
access to all the tools that I do (which is why I made the suggestion to
let Majordomo handle it).
|
|
