Re: redistribution lists

Thread View: net.mail.msggroup

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by Jon Solomon Mon, 30 Apr 1984 15:06

#41

Author: Jon Solomon
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 1984 15:06

22 lines
1798 bytes

I don't believe that the mailsystem is responsible for inserting an
appropriate return path or sender to force mail system errors to 
be returned to a specific mailbox.

Using the digested lists as an example doesn't address the problems of
immediate distribution lists returning errors to the sender of each message.
Digested list maintainers can (and in most cases do) insert the return path
for their lists because all the incoming mail goes out as the body of a
message. The only part of a digest that a mail system cares about is the
header. I distribute TELECOM, and all the errors from that list go to
TELECOM-REQUEST (which is basically back to me).

In the case of immediately distributed lists, some sort of filter mechanism
must be inserted into the process of delivery to specify the correct return
path/reply-to address. A mail system can support this sort of behavior by
allowing the user to write the filter, and then run it over all mail going
to a specific address. I believe this sort of filter mechanism is
sufficiently useful that modifying the mailsystem to support it is
possible without jeapordizing portability.

I have spoken,
--Jon

Re: redistribution lists

#52

Author: werner
Date: Tue, 01 May 1984 15:23

39 lines
2220 bytes

< THE BUG IS DEAD !!! (rumour from a net-famous person) Reincarnating...>

a)  any delivery problems should go to the maintainer of the 'most recent'
	redistribution list and NOT TO THE SENDER.

b)  the delivery system which redistributes a 'broad-casted' article should
	NOT BE RESPONSIBLE to provide a return-path to the author. With the
	current incompatibility mess it is asking too much from the mailers
	to provide a path across 3 different nets and 5 different
	'redistribution lists'.

c)  the author of an article should 'sign' his article, including some
	useful paths to his mail-box.

d)  NO ANONYMOUS messages.  Either have another person post for you who
	vouches for the source, or post it as if you, yourself had another
	person asking you to post.  That goes for kremlvax and moskvax, too.
	(which was a good joke, I'd like to hear more. Got 4.2 up yet??)

The not-very-flexible-opinion of	werner @ ut-ngp

	We do the thinking at tax-payers' expense at BIG-STATE-U
	the prototype under contract to EYE-BE-AM
	the first production model at BIG-$$$ salary for TI-EYE
	We become a partner to market an "improved version" for micros

	Then we find some venture capital and develop the definitive version,
	(luckily we NEVER signed any non-disclosure forms - we are too famous
	to be pushed into that)

	We either make it big, but get pushed out of the company because we
	have less than 50% of the shares, or we go broke ....

	both lead us to become a CONSULTANT to tell others how we wished we
	had done it .....

NEXT TIME, WE ARE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT ... FER SURE	(famous last words)

Gad, it feels like Monday ...

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads