I don't see why it is 'bad protocol practice'. If a remote service (in this
case an ML expander) offers a certain service, it is the job of the
protocol to
allow the service to be requested.
In an environment where there are a large number of MLs, ML management becomes
a problem; having to create and maintain variants for each is untenable and
would in effect guarantee that they were not maintained well (as, for
instance,
when someone should be removed). It is perfectly reasonable for a 'third party
( the ML expander) to offer a service which is an alternative to having to
maintain variants.
elliott ginsburg
At 12:01 PM 5/5/98 , Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 11:37 AM 5/5/98 -0400, John Pawling wrote:
I believe that if the originator does
not want to send the message to the entire ML, then it is the originator's
responsibility to construct a separate ML including the desired recipients
or to compose a list of the individual recipients (i.e. not use an ML at
all).
John's right here. It is bad protocol practice to say to a remote processor
"here's what I want you to do" when you can cause the same actions yourself.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium