[BLU discuss] Re: Multiple clients over Linux PPTP --- Motion to Ban Use of

[Derek Martin]

Patrick McManus did expound, once apon a Today:

> In a previous episode Derek Martin said...
> 
> :: Here's a suggestion:  post to the seperate lists seperately.  I see by the
> :: message headers that you use pine, so it isn't that much extra work.
> 
> yechh... two things spring to mind to not like about this strategy:
> 
>  a] each copy will have a different Message-ID.. so archivers and mail
>  filters will treat them as having different content.. people on
>  multiple lists will get multiple copies, even if they've setup
>  mechanisms to filter them out. It's just like not cross-posting in
>  [the old] usenet [days].
> 
>  b] wastes bandwidth if any of the lists are housed on the same MX
>  host.. this is very common if the lists are closely related
>  (linux-foo, linux-bar, and linux-baz for instance..)

Yes, either way does have drawbacks... Another method (I've seen suggested
on Usenet) would be post to ONE group, and wait to see if you get an
answer that works for you. If not, post to a second, rinse, repeat...

Have you a better solution? Undisclosed recipients is a rather unfriendly
way to post to a mailing list.  I still like the idea of the list software
replacing the "undisclosed recipients" with the address to post to the
list, but I'm not aware that any mailing list software has such a feature
(though I'm also not aware of it specifically being absent; I just don't
know).


-- 
PGP/GPG Public key at http://cerberus.ne.mediaone.net/~derek/pubkey.txt
------------------------------------------------------
Derek D. Martin      |  Unix/Linux geek
derekm at mediaone.net  |  derek at cerberus.ne.mediaone.net
------------------------------------------------------

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