Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <416707AA(_dot_)1090001(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
Which is why I said "The only place where it *can* be known ...". For
sure, if the author does not know, then there is even less chance that
subsequent mailing list expanders would know
Amazing -- this has been explained to you in detail several times
and you still don't get it! One last time:
What is so amazing is that you still continue to repeat the same
explanation "one last time" without actually attacking the real problem.
Author A sends a message to mailbox foo. That mailbox, unbeknownst
to A, is a mailing list mailbox, which is expanded to multiple
addresses (any one of which might be yet another mailing list
mailbox). Although A knows nothing about any of those lists,
clearly the administrator of the list associated with mailbox foo
knows that it expands to a mailing list, as do any administrators
of any such downstream lists.
Yes! Yes! Yes! That is all perfectly true. It is also totally irrelevant.
So please answer me. HOW is the mail expander for 'foo' supposed to know
about the totally separate mailing list 'bar' to which the author
crossposted his message.
I never claimed that it could; *that* is what is irrelevant. This
started with your claim -- repeated above -- that only the message
author can know when list expansion takes place. It has been
explained to you that you were wrong, *why* you were wrong, and
you have had ample opportunity to admit your error or simply stop
repeating that erroneous statement, but instead you have repeated
that false claim, over and over.
This whole argument relates to *discussion* lists (of which ietf-822 is a
typical example). Such lists are characterized by long threads of
discussion, with many participants, all posted to the list. It is most
improbable that any participant is unaware that his messages are being
sent to a list. Yes, I know there are other kinds of lists around, but
this is the kind we are particularly concerned with.
The discussion is about responses in general; lists are a small part
of that issue, and specific lists are a tiny fraction of that small
part.
Now, supposing some author wants to raise a matter which is likely to be
relevant to both ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org and
IMAP(_at_)CAC(_dot_)Washington(_dot_)EDU(_dot_) So he
cross-posts to both lists, and ideally he would like all respondents on
both lists to reply to both lists. How can this be brought about?
He can indicate that desire trivially:
Reply-To: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, IMAP(_at_)CAC(_dot_)Washington(_dot_)EDU
This is a hard problem.
No, that (which not incidentally is unrelated to your repeated
false claim) is trivially solved; if the author wishes to indicate
a recommendation for responses, he simply uses the standard field
which is designed for precisely that purpose.
But what is clear is that IF the *author* does not solve it, then
there is NO WAY that the list expanders at either ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
and
IMAP(_at_)CAC(_dot_)Washington(_dot_)EDU can solve it (because they just do
not have the
information to do so).
The indication of response recommendations by an author is unrelated
to your original claim of where it is and is not possible to
determine that list expansion takes place.
But it is at least possible that the author can solve it. It is
inconceivable that he is not aware in this case that he is posting to two
lists. He is in a position to set Reply-To/MFT/whatever to point to both
lists. Nobody else is in a position to do that.
Yes, it is true that the author is in the best position to provide
*his* recommendation for responses, if he is willing to do so, but
that is unrelated to your claim regarding identification of if/when
list expansion takes place.
I have been trying to point out this simple fact for nearly two weeks, but
you persist in going on about how you cannot be sure that the author knows
that 'foo' is a list, and that 'foo' might be expanded to lots of other
lists. So what? Have you any better solution to propose?
The solution to the "problem" of an author indicating his recommendation
for responses is trivially solved. You have yet to explain what "problem"
requires determining if/when list expansion takes place.