In <415CAC7B(_dot_)1050108(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <4159F9EC(_dot_)3020603(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
The only place where it is known that a crosspost is occurring is at the
original sender.
Not true, on at least two counts:
1. an author might not know that a particular mailbox expands to a list.
Sure, the author might not know [...]
So you agree that your original statement was untrue.
OK, if you want to be unnecessarily pedantic:
The only place where it can be known that a crosspost is occurring is at the
original sender.
But for sure if the author is not aware of it, then agents further
down the chain will be even less aware of it.
That's obviously wrong; clearly a downstream list expander (or
its maintainer) is aware that list expansion is taking place.
If a message is crossposted to List-A and List-B, then in general the
author will be aware of that fact. The message now goes to two
list-expanders, but the List-B expander is totally unaware that List-A is
another list, and therefore cannot modify its behaviour (e.g. in its
Reply-To or MFT) so that replies from its members go to both lists. And
vice versa for the other list. So what is "obviusly wrong" about that?
Hence the original sender is that latest point
Still drawing bad conclusion from false premises, I see.
No, you don't see. Please explain how the expander of List-A or List-B is
is a better situation to deal with this scenario that the original sender.
Unless, of course, you have a better solution to propose.
And I am still awaiting your solution.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5