Barry Warsaw writes:
> Indeed. It would be great if you could suppress the direct CC,
It's not that hard if done in the MUA. My problem is that Uday keeps
fiddling with the relevant functions in VM and I get merge conflicts
which aren't always trivial to solve. ;-)
In cases like this, I suggest that the user check the list's archive.
Only if the list has an archive.
--Barry Finkel
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: h
On Nov 06, 2013, at 09:51 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>> I believe that according to RFC 5322 (and predecessors) Mailman SHOULD
>> add a Resent-Message-ID to indicate that it handled the message, but I
>> doubt this would change the duplicate-suppression behavior of Gmail
>> and MS Exchange.
This
On Nov 06, 2013, at 09:05 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>For lists hosted by the same Mailman, Mailman 3 might be able to
>handle this by adding *both* List-Ids to the header, and only adding
>the (other) RFC 2369 headers for the list(s) the user is subscribed
>to. Of course this requires person
* Stephen J. Turnbull :
> Note that the subject is incorrect. Mailman is not reusing the
> Message-ID, it is refusing to alter it which is correct behavior
> according to RFC 5322 (Message-ID is an originator field).
>
> I believe that according to RFC 5322 (and predecessors) Mailman SHOULD
> ad
* Mark Sapiro :
> On 11/05/2013 07:14 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >
> > Strictly speaking, all that womand wanted was to know if the message
> > passed both mailing lists... So she should have more faith :)
>
>
> In cases like this, I suggest that the user check the list's archive.
Good point
* Stephen J. Turnbull :
> Ralf Hildebrandt writes:
>
> > Strictly speaking, all that womand wanted was to know if the message
> > passed both mailing lists... So she should have more faith :)
>
> For lists hosted by the same Mailman, Mailman 3 might be able to
In my case its two lists on the s
Richard Damon writes:
> It is not clear to me that mailman should add the Resent-* headers. The
> RFC states:
No, it's not clear to me, either. I do have a very strong opinion in
favor, to the extent that I would make it an option defaulting to ON.
> "Resent fields SHOULD be added to any mes
On 11/5/13, 6:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Note that the subject is incorrect. Mailman is not reusing the
> Message-ID, it is refusing to alter it which is correct behavior
> according to RFC 5322 (Message-ID is an originator field).
>
> I believe that according to RFC 5322 (and predecessor
Ralf Hildebrandt writes:
> Strictly speaking, all that womand wanted was to know if the message
> passed both mailing lists... So she should have more faith :)
For lists hosted by the same Mailman, Mailman 3 might be able to
handle this by adding *both* List-Ids to the header, and only adding
t
Note that the subject is incorrect. Mailman is not reusing the
Message-ID, it is refusing to alter it which is correct behavior
according to RFC 5322 (Message-ID is an originator field).
I believe that according to RFC 5322 (and predecessors) Mailman SHOULD
add a Resent-Message-ID to indicate tha
On 11/05/2013 07:14 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> Strictly speaking, all that womand wanted was to know if the message
> passed both mailing lists... So she should have more faith :)
In cases like this, I suggest that the user check the list's archive.
--
Mark Sapiro The highway is f
* Barry Warsaw :
> On Nov 05, 2013, at 02:46 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> >There's not way of turning this off on Exchange
>
> Sounds like the same bit of "helpfulness" that Gmail performs.
>
> http://wiki.list.org/x/2IA9
>
> It's a tough problem, but I think Mailman's retention of the origi
On Nov 05, 2013, at 02:46 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>There's not way of turning this off on Exchange
Sounds like the same bit of "helpfulness" that Gmail performs.
http://wiki.list.org/x/2IA9
It's a tough problem, but I think Mailman's retention of the original
Message-Ids is the right-er app
--On November 5, 2013 10:25:20 AM +0100 Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
Who's to blame? Mailman for re-using the message-id? Exchange for
dropping the second mail on the floor?
The messages are duplicates, so they should have the same Message-ID.
Whether to suppress delivery of duplicates is t
* Richard Damon :
> This is really a tough problem. Presumably, since mailman doesn't
> significantly alter the message (which is one reason it is allowed to
> maintain the message-id) it should really matter that the recipient only
> gets one copy of the message, or which one.
Yes, only the Subj
On 11/5/13, 4:25 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Mailman re-uses the message-id of the original email. In our case an
> exchange user is recipient of two mailing-lists. Both mails are
> adressed in the original message, both lists distribute the list, two
> emails having the same message-id a
Hi!
Mailman re-uses the message-id of the original email. In our case an
exchange user is recipient of two mailing-lists. Both mails are
adressed in the original message, both lists distribute the list, two
emails having the same message-id arrive at the Exchange server, which
seems to discard the
18 matches
Mail list logo
