Laird Breyer wrote:
If the mailing list doesn't keep an archive of itself, then there's
little hope of making it intelligent at all.
There's a big difference between keeping an archive (write once)
and grubbing through an entire archive when each new message is
submitted to the list.
Also, it doesn't suffer from the problem of recognizing variations in
Re:, Re[2] etc. to identify replies (which is what is problematic now).
Presence of "Re:" does not identify a reply.
Subject: Re: the note between Do and Mi
Subject: Re: Element number 75
etc. do not indicate replies. The only reliable indication
of a response is the presence of an (optional) In-Reply-To
field (if the original had an optional Message-ID field).
That's a security issue, which exists independently of the
issue of accomodating list member preferences. What's the worst
that can happen now on mailing lists, and would it get significantly
worse with an "intelligent" list server?
Most lists do not depend on accurately identifying an author
at submission time. You seem to be proposing that some automatic
action is taken by a server based on unreliable information.
That's generally a bad idea. While digitally signing messages
could help, use of signed messages on mailing lists is quite
rare.
You're right. If such a person is not a member, then his/her preferences
can't be known.
They can be known if and only if he as a message author indicates
where he wants responses to be sent, in his message (via Reply-To).
Ok, it's a good question, but I think that's bordering on recursively
reimplementing the mailing list. My personal inclination is that a
response to a response is not a response to the original poster, so
needn't concern him or her.
Hypothetical situation:
A asks a question
B gives a wrong answer, which is copied to A
C, D, E, and F respond that B's answer was incorrect, and giving
the correct answer -- none of which is seen by A.