Hi Susan,
Despite the fact I know nothing about Smartlist, I'll throw in
two cents here. Someone else may say it better (two dollars? :)
and I hope I have my facts straight. Someone will correct me
I'm sure :)
Susan Granquist <valkyrie(_at_)eskimo(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, David W. Tamkin wrote:
Now, as I said, the above is all within your prerogative if you're the
end recipient (say, as a member of a list running under SmartList). If
you're maintaining a list with SmartList and you want to take the
Resent- headers out of articles when the list sends them to members,
please reconsider. The different sets of original and Resent- headers
are useful information to the mailers and to the members.
He's right, you don't want to get rid of these without good reason.
Here's what is happening that I'm partially concerned about and am trying
to find a way to avoid having happen. I'm not sure how much of it is due
to procmail and how much to Smartlist.
From dattier(_at_)wwa(_dot_)com Sun Aug 25 13:40:32 1996
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 09:28:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier(_at_)wwa(_dot_)com>
To: Susan Granquist <valkyrie(_at_)eskimo(_dot_)com>
Cc: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Subject: Re: one more time
**************************
From dattier(_at_)wwa(_dot_)com Sun Aug 25 13:40:38 1996
This is a bit puzzling; my "From_" headers from the list show:
| From procmail-request(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE Sun Aug 25
17:24:46 1996
or similar. Something in your system is munging headers I think.
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 09:28:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier(_at_)wwa(_dot_)com>
To: Susan Granquist <valkyrie(_at_)eskimo(_dot_)com>
Cc: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Subject: Re: one more time
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 16:51:25 +0200
Resent-From: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
************
I got two copies of the message since one came to me and one went to the
list, the one to the list shows the Resent Headers. Only one message
comes from the list.
This will happen anyway, since they're being sent in two different
"envelopes" via different paths, and when the second one arrives,
your system has no way of knowing that the first one arrived and
was already delivered to you. Thus, nuking those headers won't
help. When you are both in a To: and Cc: header, for example,
it may arrive within a single envelope, and your MDA can recognize
that you only need one copy.
If you check the "full headers" you should see one in both called
"Message-ID:" and, in the one from the list, "Resent-Message-ID:".
Hopefully, the "Message-ID" fields are identical.
This provides you a way, as an end user, to junk the second copy when
it arrives, using procmail and formail (there's an example in the
"procmailex" man page for maintaining a cache of received Message-ID's).
It's about 300 lines into the man page. The recipe itself is only
a couple of lines long.
Unfortunately, as a list owner, you can't solve the "problem" for
others, but they should have previously had the same thing happen
with the listserv list you formerly had, although it's possible
that listserv was recognizing the "To:" or "Cc:" as a match for a list
member and then never send the "list" copy (some of what goes on inside
listserv is still a mystery to me).
Since you mentioned in private email that your list is on-site,
it's possible that the listserv version put things in one envelope
where Smartlist is using two. But I don't think nuking those
headers will change what you get.
Hope that helps. As I said, just two cents worth (and that's
*after* inflation :)
Cheers,
Stan.
ps - I tend to *like* to get both copies; the direct-mailed one
is faster and ends up in my inbox, while the list one ends up
in the designated folder for that list, which I can read in context at
my leisure; I have procmail set up to do this for me. But then
I count on the "From " header (no colon) to differentiate, and I don't
know why yours doesn't show "From " the list.