Multiple clients over Linux PPTP --- Motion to Ban Use of Undisclosed Recipients on this List

Oommen Thomas oommen at
Mon Feb 28 18:02:28 EST 2000

Kindly listen to my part of the story.

I had posted to 5 lists each having 100's or 1000's of members.
Most of these lists have the 'Reply-to' set in the mailing list software
so that even if there is no 'To', the reply goes to the list. 
That's what I wanted rather than all the members in all the lists posted
to, receiving all responses, which will be a real nuisance. (I have done
so earlier and received flames)

Hope my point is appreciated.
Anyways, I apologize for the inconvenience if any, caused.

For the mail filtering part, mailing list software allow something (like
say [BLU-DISCUSS] ) to be prefixed to the subject, or the 'Reply-to'
option as said above can be used.


 On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, John Wenger wrote:

<JohnWenger>Using undisclosed recipients on a mailing list sucks,
<JohnWenger>because it renders standard filters useless.  I filter on
<JohnWenger>"discuss at" and "discuss-digest at" in both the
<JohnWenger>"To" and "CC" fields.
<JohnWenger>If people insist on doing this, then the mailing list needs
<JohnWenger>to do something to enable msg filtering, perhaps
<JohnWenger>automatically prepending to the subject line a string useful
<JohnWenger>for filtering, e.g., "Blu.Org", etc., however this is
<JohnWenger>undesirable since it wastes line space.
<JohnWenger>How else might this problem be solved?
<JohnWenger>I move that the practice of using undisclosed recipients on
<JohnWenger>this list be banned, and implemented in the rules for the
<JohnWenger>mailing list processing of msgs, so that humans don't have
<JohnWenger>to keep going through this sort of thing.
<JohnWenger>Would someone please second this motion?

Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at (Subject line is ignored).

More information about the Discuss mailing list