It's not difficult to imagine why someone might want something like this in a
business environment where sequential approvals might be required, or something
along those lines. It might be done with a header like X-
Sequence: and having the list server in the Reply-to: field.
But you raise a good point. I don't see off hand how to bullet-proof this
scheme against user error, or against mailers which don't follow the expected
conventions. Maybe a better scheme would be this:
1. Person A receives the message.
2. Person A replies to the server
3. If no reply in n hours the server sends a reminder.
4. If no reply after another n hours that person is skipped.
5. When the server receives A's response, that response is registered and the
message is sent on to Person B
etc.
Under this scheme, the worst thing that could happen is some delay plus the
filure to register a reply from users who don't reply properly. The person
sending the message would have a list of non-repsondants so they could be
contacted directly. Of course, the issue remains as to whdether this would
defeat the purpose of the scheme in the first place. Perhaps it should be an
option to continue on non-reply. Recipeinets could even be classified as
critical and non-critical (in terms of required response).
---
Gregory Woodhouse
gjw(_at_)best(_dot_)com
http://www.best.com/~gjw/
----------
From: David W. Tamkin[SMTP:dattier(_at_)wwa(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 1996 2:51 AM
To: john(_at_)johncon(_dot_)johncon(_dot_)com
Cc: Procmail Mailing List
Subject: Re: routing slips
Despite my previous misreading, John Conover had actually written this:
| I think this could be done with a smartlist mailing list, such that a
| mail is sent to the distribution list, and is saved, and forwarded to
| the first person in the routing list, and when he/she/it replies, it
| goes back to the mailing list, where it is saved, and sent to the
| second person in the routing list, etc. Has anyone done this already?
I didn't catch the part about "when the first person replies"; sorry.
So let me make sure I understand now:
Someone writes to the alias. The letter goes ONLY to the first name on the
list. That person's reply goes not to the originator of the memo but to an
archive and to the second person on the list, and the second person's reply
goes only to the archive and to the third person on the list. Eventually,
the response from the last person on the list, if he or she writes one, will
be stored in the thread archive but not delivered to any other person's email.
If anyone along the way doesn't reply, does the chain break? If anyone along
the way trims the original letter or earlier responses out of his or her out-
going reply, do the lower people on the list never see them in email but have
to search the archive if they're interested? John said that each response is
"saved" but saved where? Somewhere world-readable or group-readable so that
everyone on the list can, if he or she takes action, read the entire exchange?
This question was easier to answer when I didn't understand it. The part I
missed on first reading exposed a whole bunch of omitted details.
And I still have no idea of what John is really trying to accomplish, such
as why a simple mailing list that sends everything to everyone on it (and
possibly also archives list activity), for example, won't do the job.