[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IETF Draft: Good Mailing List Behaviour

1999-02-26 08:15:09
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:56:58 +0100, you said:
At 13.09 +0100 99-02-26, Charles Lindsey wrote:
Now suppose there is a topic that should be discussed on both lists (and
actually, this is a real situation, because I am about to start such a
topic in a few days). One way would be to create a new list (call it
usenet-plus-mail) whose only subscribers are ietf-822 and usenet-format.
So if you want to post to both lists, you post instead to
usenet-plus-mail, but you continue posting to the single lists for topics
that only apply to one of them (well, there may be other ways of
arranging things - this is just a possible example).

That is a very uusual special case. In almost all cases,
people do not want to post to sublists except by mistake,
when their intention was to reach the whole list.


I think you may have misunderstood what Charles meant.  My reading of it
is (to cite an actual local situation):

We have locally 4 lists engr-fresh, engr-soph, engr-junior, and engr-senior
(one each for the 4 years of the engineering program).  We also have
a 'super-list' engr-all which has all 4 as sublists.  Postings of
interest to *all* engineering students get sent to engr-all.

What Charles was talking about was that (for example) you still need
to be able to post to engr-fresh for those subjects of interest only
to first-year students.

As another example, if there were a list 'usenet-plus-mail', you would
still need the ietf-822 list for discussions of things that don't apply
to usenet, such as the discussion of what headers a mailing list processor
should add (as you point out, a Received: and RFC2369 headers)...

                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Computer Systems Senior Engineer
                                Virginia Tech

Attachment: pgpqJCwigaBdw.pgp
Description: PGP signature