[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ProgSoc] uts.edu (Now with 10% more rant)



On 10/20/05, victor rajewski <askvictor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/20/05, Matthew Beauregard <marauder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > * Ryan Heise <rheise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-10-20 13:57]:
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:01:22PM +1000, Matthew Beauregard wrote:
> > > > Yes.  See the list archives for the relevant objections.  This one
> > > > comes up about once a year as we get a new crop of members who can't
> > > > work their mail clients, and think that we should munge mail headers
> > > > for them.
> > >
> > > Do you suggest they use the Mail-Followup-To header?
> >
> > Actually that's Considered Harmful as well.  People who are bothered by
> > duplicate messages should just do something in procmail to filter them out.
>
> yawn
>
> Place the following in .procmailrc in ~.
>
> PATH=/bin:/usr/bin
> MAILDIR=$HOME/mail      #you'd better make sure it exists
> # LOGFILE=$HOME/.procmaillog #recommended
>
> :0 Whc: msgid.lock
> | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
>
> :0 a:
> duplicates

I thin Matt's solution might be the way to go.
I believe this has come up before, and that the reason why there was
no configuration of a Reply-To header was because if a non-subscribed
person emailed the list, and people hit reply-all, then the
unsubscribed poster would not receive any of the replies from the list
unless the replying progsoccian made the effort to input the correct
email address.

I'm just wondering if the solution to this problem is more annoying
than the problem itself. It could also explain why in the past when
I've sent email to psexec, I've received no reply, and have then had
the reply forwarded to me at a much later date.

-Andi.

-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for help.