On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:05:32 -0800 (PST) alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, J C Lawrence wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:56:39 -0800 (PST) alex wetmore >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 1) You are using an email system which removes duplicates (based on >>> the Message-Id header). Microsoft Exchange 2000 is one such system. >>> If Mailman is changing the headers so much perhaps it should stick a >>> new Message-Id on the message though. >> We should start out admitting that such mail systems are broken and >> then decide how far we want to cater to such broken systems. > Eliminating duplicates is a useful feature, not a broken one. My original statement was more generous than I intended. Corrected: MTAs which do duplicate suppression are broken. That's the function of the MUA, or, in very constrained instances, the LDA. > Think about the hacks that Mailman-2.1 has to prevent sending the > duplicate. Yup. I'm not fond of their existence. > In a complex corporate topology there are reasons why duplicates are > sometimes generated, but clients should have no reason to see them. Then they configure their MUAs not to. > Exchange is not the only system that does this, but it might be the > widest deployed. FWLIW Cyrus can do dupe suppression at the LDA level. Sadly its a global setting. >> There are multiple ways to achieve this. Parsing To: is one of the >> more fragile ways. Far more effective and near-guaranteed to be >> correct (except for the standard broken software case as above) is >> tracking In-Reply-To: from your original post(s). > That depends on keeping a database of sent message-ids and comparing > In-Reply-To against each of them. Few clients support this. Ignoring the closed source or otherwise opaque cases (ie no LDA/MDA control): tracking In-Reply-To: headers is neither complex or expensive. I do it here and have done for years. Counting the opaque and transparent cases: Partially true. Most MUAs will happily thread under your original message. Note to self: Must investigate doing this sort of thing under Sieve. I'm fairly sure it's not possible (need to escape the Sieve sandbox for localFS access). > If you can recommend a decent text-based IMAP client that runs on Unix > and Win32 and which supports this functionality I'm all ears. Sorry, I don't track the Windows state of affairs. Its been 12 years since I used windows anything more than trivially and I've no interest in changing that. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ This message was sent to: archive@jab.org Unsubscribe or change your options at http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org