Hello, Cameron Simpson (2025/06/02 11:31 +1000): > On 28May2025 08:49, Sébastien Hinderer <sebastien.hinde...@ens-lyon.org> > wrote: > > Kurt Hackenberg (2025/05/18 23:45 -0400): > > > On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 12:18:53PM +0200, Sébastien Hinderer wrote: > > > > In my understanding, a consequence of what you say is that a > > > > message will not be detected as coming from a list if it is sent in > > > Bcc to > > > > that list, even if you are subscribed to this list. > > > > > > Yes, I think that's right. > > > > > > Out of curiosity, what kind of list does that, and why? > > > > To the first part of your question I would have thought that the > > response does not depend from the list but that the problem happens > > everytime someboy Bccs a list? > > Well, such a message would lack the To:the-list header.
Yes, that is indeed the case. > But I'd expect the List-ID: et al to be present, having passed through > the list software. This is also the case, indeed. > But if eg it went to you personally (directly) and also via a list, you will > get 2 copies: one with list headers via the list and one without (the direct > copy to you). You'd need to examine the not-recognised message headers to > see which, and why. But that would be fine, I'd get one copy flagged with T or C and one flagged with L, which basically is what I'm after. > This discussion is a little moot without seeing example message headers - > the possible behaviour is quite varied. But there is nothing special about them really. Cheers, Seb.
