Subject: Re: [1015] Duplications on the list [1020]

From: Charlie Fineberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:05:32 -0600 (CST)

> > While we're on mailing list administrative matters, I would like to
> > see the list itself removed from the Reply-To: header ...
> 
>   If noone has any objections I'll make that change.  You have one day to
> argue for keeping them.  I'm also going to change the position of the
> message number to the end of the subect.

  Clarification:

  I'm going to make the change next Tuesday afternoon (~96 hours) from
now in real time.  That is one WORKING day for me.  I wouldn't want to
discriminate against holliday weekend vacationers and other time
zones.  Just let me (or the list) know if you think there is value to
having a list wide reply set or not.  All arguments must be particular
to wu-ftpd and not general philosophy :-).
	Charlie
-- 
Charles M. Fineberg        URL: http://firesign.wustl.edu/~fineberg/index.html
Office of the Network Coordinator   email: [email-masked]
Washington University, Campus Box 1048    Phone: (314)935-4865
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130    Fax: (314)935-7142

---

From: "Michael J. Corrigan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 13:06:52 -0800

I think it's a good idea if it will reduce the chance of wu-ftpd list
mail-bombing.

Also there's no indication that these postings are from a mailing list.
Could you consider adding a Precedence: bulk or Precedence: list
header? Some autoresponders (i.e. vacation programs) will not reply
messages with one of those headers.

---

From: Charlie Fineberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 14:49:46 -0600 (CST)

> I am not sure it would be a good thing, however a sender field for the
> mailing list would surely be a real asset and would certainly enable a
> lot of readers to have the mailing list stored nicely in a mail folder
> without requiring some heavy fiddling.

  A sender field is beyond my capability to provide (we buy this mail
server), but if you want to automate your placement in folders, how about
Looking at the envelope from (always [email-masked])
which will guarantee that it is from wu-ftpd.  You can also check for an
Errors-to: [email-masked] if you can only look for rfc822
headers.
	Charlie
-- 
Charles M. Fineberg        URL: http://firesign.wustl.edu/~fineberg/index.html
Office of the Network Coordinator   email: [email-masked]
Washington University, Campus Box 1048    Phone: (314)935-4865
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130    Fax: (314)935-7142

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 20:41:38 +0100 (MET)

hello,

I am not sure it would be a good thing, however a sender field for the mailing list would surely be a real asset and would certainly enable a lot of readers to
have the mailing list stored nicely in a mail folder without requiring some
heavy fiddling.

--Karim

-- 
Karim Saouli					Math Department of the
System administrator				Swiss Fed. Inst. of Tech (ETHZ)
		 				Room: HG G 14.2
S-Mail: HG G 14.2				Email: [email-masked]
	ETH Zentrum				Phone: ++41-1-632-2230
	CH-8092 Zurich				FAX  : ++41-1-632-1085

---

From: Bill Aten <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 00:08:26 -0700 (MST)

>  Message ID: <[email-masked]>
>        From: Charlie Fineberg
>        Date: Fri Dec 30 11:05:32 1994
>     Subject: Re: [1015] Duplications on the list [1020]
> ---------------------------------------
> 

If individuals will summarize responses for the list, or responders include
the list when their reply is potentially of interest to list members, then
I agree that removing the list from Reply-to: is a good thing.  If the 
above doesn't occur, however, the list will turn into a one-way
conversation of questions, and "me too" messages.  Those of us who monitor
the "goings on" but don't jump in unless we have something to say will be
left out in the cold.

I vote to keep the list in Reply-to: unless we strongly encourage folks to
summarize responses to questions, or encourage responders to ensure the
list is included in replies.

The biggest and most annoying problem (duplicate messages) seems to have been
resolved -- THANK YOU!!
-- 
==============================================================================
Bill Aten  /  N4EGH  |  E-Mail: [email-masked]  |  PGP Public Key: 0x208EBA7D
2728 Socorro Loop    |  Voice:  (505) 479-9055   |  PGP Fingerprint (v2.6.2):
Holloman AFB, NM     |  Fax:    (505) 479-9056   |     21 F0 35 3F 5E 25 C8 28
88330-8123           |  CIS:    70270,451        |     35 2C C0 86 9E 1F A1 E6
==============================================================================
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are
totally worthless.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bill Campbell)
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 10:24:02 -0800 (PST)

> the list when their reply is potentially of interest to list members...

My philosophy is to respond directly when something isn't of general
interest, and to direct it to the list otherwise (just like netnews).

I think that limiting bandwidth is more important on mailing lists
than news groups because mailing lists take much more of a system's
processing and bandwidth than news groups.  A message on netnews comes
in once and is read by many people while mailing list traffic generally 
requires a separate connection for each reader.  Many people on mailing
lists don't get netnews and depend on long-distance phone connections
and uucp or pay by the message on CompuServe and other on-line services
so it's in their interest to keep the signal to noise ratio low.

We archive all mailing lists that come in here or that we maintain,
and they're available on ftp://ftp.celestial.com/pub/mailing-lists.
There are subdirectories by year_month.  The oldest wu-ftp list that I
have goes back to June '94:
    ftp://ftp.celestial.com/pub/mailing-lists/9406/wu-ftpd.gz

The correct IP address is 192.136.111.2.  We moved last month and the
IP address change hasn't propagated around the network yet.

Bill
--
INTERNET:  [email-masked]   Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc.
UUCP:              camco!bill   2835 82nd Avenue S.E. S-100
FAX:           (206) 232-9186   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
http://www.celestial.com/

The question is, why are politicians so eager to be president?  What is
it about the job that makes it worth revealing, on national television,
that you have the ethical standards of a slime-coated piece of
industrial waste?
		-- Dave Barry, "On Presidential Politics"