Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(February 1998)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: majordomo-workers: Re: Duplicate message checking?
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu>
Date: 11 Feb 1998 13:10:49 -0600
To: majordomo-workers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: Bill Campbell's message of Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:25:28 -0800
References: <Pine.BSI.3.91.980211011546.25450D-100000@ivan.iecc.com> <ufayazilkkz.fsf@sina.hpc.uh.edu> <19980211082528.08599@celestial.com>

>>>>> "BC" == Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> writes:

BC> I've implemented this, and posted the patches quite a while ago.

I think you're talking about something different.  2.0 already implements
the removal of duplicated on one list (where duplicity is defined by having
either the same message or same MD5 checksum of either the whole body or
the first ten lines).

What this thread is about is when mail is sent to two lists (lista and
listb) having subscribers in common, having only one message sent to each
subscriber.  As it is, some subscribers get two copies.

BC> I've been considering changing the data to keep all the Received:
BC> headers instead of the count.  This would allow me to go back to see
BC> where SPAM came through that managed to get through the filters.

2.0 does this, too.  I'm assuming that you want to do this because you
strip the received headers in resend.

 - J<


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Duplicate message checking?
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Next: Re: bug report nb5 (bug tracking system)
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: majordomo-workers: Re: Duplicate message checking?
From: Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com>
Next: Re: Duplicate message checking?
From: "Randall S. Winchester" <rsw@Glue.umd.edu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com