>>>>> "RSW" == Randall S Winchester <rsw@Glue.umd.edu> writes:
RSW> However... If the mail came in to majordomo with multiple address that
RSW> were lists on the same majordomo server, then you could do "union"
RSW> processing of the lists.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "union processing", but remember that
the MTA will call resend multiple times, once for each list. The
individual copies of resend don't know about each other, short of some
internal form of synchronization.
RSW> This should be able to over come most of the performance issues.
You still have to compute the list differences somehow.
RSW> Like if mail was sent to "fvwm" and "fvwm-workers", and everyone in
RSW> "fvwm-workers" was in "fvwm"; If "fvwm-workers" was also archived or
RSW> digested, would these messages be missed?
No, in the schemes I outlined, duplicate filtering happens during
delivery. In 2.0, a separate copy is sent to the archive/digest (which
eliminates things like the need to try to strip the footers and such). It
isn't hung off an outgoing alias like it is now.
RSW> Also there is the end user case where filter by listname occurs for
RSW> archival or warning purposes. If mail were send to "staff" and
RSW> "staff-pager" would one not get the page?
Well, you would just have those lists not exclude each other.
- J<
References:
|
|
