In <414054F6(_dot_)7080801(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> "Eric A. Hall"
<ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> writes:
Right. In theory you can do this with a single list by looking for a
List-* header and matching it with an address in the TO header, but if
there are any other addresses in the TO/CC blocks (especially any other
list addresses for which there are no list-* header) it fails completely.
So what you really need is a way to overload the TO/CC blocks with
additional information, or really what would be better would be to define
new recipient header such as List or Group or whatnot, and which you could
match with more decisively, and which would survive multiple mailing lists
that pass through multiple servers. See the original message again; most
of this stuff is easier to think about in terms of "later".
These problems would certainly be simpler if it were possible to tell by
inspection whether a message had been sent to a mailing list, and if to to
how many of them. Overloading TO/CC blocks would certainly do it, but the
only way to do that compatibly with existing practive would be to use the
Group syntax:
To: LISTS: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org,
usenet-format(_at_)landfield(_dot_)com;,
PERSONS: joe(_at_)example(_dot_)com;
But what chance of getting that convention universally adopted? Perhaps if
lists were to publish their submission addresses as
"LIST: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org;" it might work, but then you would get
someone
trying to include the whole of that between angle-brackets, which does not
work.
--
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