On Mon November 22 2004 06:01, Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <F3FCF410-3B16-11D9-B81F-000393DB5366(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> Keith
Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
is that anything like defining a new convention for group syntax?
I have already accepted that a new convention for group syntax was not a
pretty solution to that particular problem
It isn't a solution; it is itself a problem (for several independent reasons).
It still remains the only solution on the table
for picking the list addresses out of a message sent using a Reply-to-All
feature, or for detecting cross-posts to multiple lists in the absence of
any indication added by the sender.
First, there is no "table". Second, comparing List-Post field content
to recipient address field content could be used to identify list
posting mailboxes (though it is by no means 100% reliable). That
is certainly a great deal better than using a common surname
as it it were a magic incantation turning a human-readable
word into a protocol element.
While we're bashing such harmful attempts at establishing
ill-advised conventions, let's not forget the "Auto: " Subject
field hack, which is in the same boat as the "Re: " hack which
was being discussed.