[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       majordomo-workers
Subject:    RE: Mail sorting facilitation ('feature' addition, rather long)
From:       "Brian Topping" <topping () digidemic ! com>
Date:       1999-01-10 21:44:24
[Download RAW message or body]

> The recently accepted standards for mailing list headers (RFC
> 2369) support
> a unique ID that is assigned once and never changed, even when the list
> changes hosts or software.  Using it requires zero additional Majordomo
> code, since list owners can add arbitrary headers.  Now, convince all
> owners of all lists you're on to support the headers, and you'll be fine.
> Have fun.

That seems like a reasonable solution.  I've already solved the problem
successfully in a different way that doesn't require anyone to write any
additional code using subaddressing.  See the original post...

> BT> I really can't stand babysitting the mail sorting rules once a month
> BT> when I have a bunch of lists going into my boxes.
>
> Cost of doing business?  Do you really expect to be able to just
> sign up to
> lists and do zero maintenance on your own configuration?  I think
> that's an
> unreasonable expectation, even given the stuff in RFC 2369.

An UNREASONABLE expectation is an expectation for a solution of a problem
that only affects myself or a few other people and one that I project upon
someone else after creating.  I never asked you to solve it for me, so it
isn't unreasonable.  On the other hand, an UNFULFILLED expectation is one
that I create for myself, completely with the expectation of solving it.
But since I have a solution to the problem of maintenence-free mail sorting
until the cows come home, it seems that I have neither of these problems,
regardless of whether they ever wrote RFS 2369.

I did write an email a month ago asking about posting from a list that is
subscribed from a subaddress, but we aren't talking about that any more.

-B

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]