|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)
a quick duplicate elimination in procmail is something like: :0 Whc: msgid.lock | formail -D 16384 msgid.cache :0 a: /dev/null for me it's a substantial lifestyle improvement. On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Steve Gibbard wrote: > > I suspect most of us who are failing to feel Mr. Sheldon's pain on this > just fail to understand the burden that's been placed on him by this > problem. > > As an occasional poster to this and other lists, I sometimes get a few > duplicate replies, which, being sent directly to me, end up in my regular > mailbox instead of my NANOG folder, and thus require me to actively delete > or sort through them. As an occasional issue, it seems like a natural > result of sending out a message to a few thousand people. Not being all > that important I often find it hard to believe that a few thousand people > will want to read what I have to say, so I don't do it all that often. > > I can see, however, that some scaling issues would come into play here. > If I have to spend a few minutes sorting out duplicate replies every few > weeks after posting something to the list, it's not a big deal. Besides, > if I've taken the time to write something and send it to a few thousand > people, I generally want to know what people have to say about it. But, > never having posted to the NANOG list eight times in less than two days, I > can only imagine how the time spent dealing with duplicate replies would > add up. Besides, coming up with that many things worth sending to a few > thousand people, in such a short period of time, must be really time > consuming. With such a busy posting schedule, should we be surprised that > the time to deal with an unfathomable quantity of duplicate responses > would be hard to come by? > > -Steve > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: > > > > > Paul Jakma wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: > > > > > >> Really? My responsibility to make sure you control your outbound > > >> mail. Got it. > > > > > > > > > You really think everyone on this list should remember the preference of > > > every other poster as to whether they do or do not want a direct copy? > > > Maybe we could have a list on a web page and everyone could check the > > > list before replying to a post. That'd be really useful. But wait, > > > seeing as how we've got these new-fangled computer thingies that can > > > take care of drudgery for us, how about we provide a way to allow the > > > poster to specify what their preference is, and then other people's > > > computers could automatically use that preference! > > > > > > Oh wait: > > > > > > http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/822/28.htm > > > > > > Someone already thought of that! In *1982*. Gosh, how prescient! > > > > Or the document a little out-dated and replaced. But not your > > responsibility huh? > > > > > > (sorry if the sarcasm is a little thick, but I groan and shake my head > > > every time someone posts to NANOG about how people should please stop > > > including them in list replies. When I see someone who usually has a > > > modicum of clue do same I just have to reply. :) ) > > > > > >> Oh. Any suggestions on how to do that using my mailer? > > > > > > > > > No idea, consult its documentation. I do ctrl+r in my MUA, in Netscape > > > Communicator or Mozilla mail or Thunderbird you just add the address in > > > a new field and click the drop down list and change the 'To' to 'Reply-To' > > > > > > If your mailer can not do something as simple as allow you to specify > > > the Reply-To, I suggest you upgrade to something that is at least > > > half-decent. > > > > > >> And I'll delete the other copy you sent me for you. > > > > > > > > > That's another option I guess. > > > > > >> Where is RFC 2821 is this requirement, by the way? RFC 2822 > > >> says it is optional but seems to be less than useful in the > > >> context here. > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course Reply-To is optional. Absence of Reply-to indicates reply > > > should go to sender. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > -- > > Requiescas in pace o email > > > > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio > > > > http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/ > > > > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [email protected] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
|