>>>>> "BC" == Bernie Cosell <bernie @
BC> And if one of the 'tagged' people does a 'reply to list', will the MLM
BC> REMOVE the tag as it goes through to the tag-free folk?
Majordomo2 does, as long as the tag didn't get mangled such that it isn't
recognisable. The hard part is getting the positioning of the tag with
respect to 'Re:' correct since the server is removing the tag for some
folks and having to add it back in for others.
What is the accepted practise with respect to tags and 'Re:'? I hate the
things and always take them out with Procmail (and my MUA ignores then when
threading anyway) so I've never noticed where they're supposed to go. My
guess is that they should show up after the 'Re:' as this makes the most
sense when threading is taken into account. I suppose all bets are off
with broken mailers that use something other than 'Re:' (unless you decide
to munge those things back to 'Re:', I suppose).
BC> If not, then that might well be the ugliest/worst of the solutions: now
BC> I'll have mail in my inbox *both* "Re: this subject" _and_ "Re:
BC> [MYLIST] this subject" [...]
Well, if you get CC'd, the MLM isn't going to have any control over what
goes directly to you and so you may see tags in this situation. I have
this problem because I filter tags out by group, so I still see an
occasional one in my Inbox. Plus when I CC a reply from the group to
someone, my reply _doesn't_ have a tag so the MLM will have to add it again
(and may change its position WRT 'Re:'). Brain hurt yet? Now, get this: I
know someone who who uses Procmail to _add_ tags for lists that don't have
them. Think about what happens when he replies to those messages.
BC> [...] and I don't know about yours, but my mail client won't sort those
BC> correctly [and so I won't be able to follow the thread particularly].
Well, you could always ask the folks who wrote it to change that behavior.
Or, if you have the source, you could hack a bit. Or play with Procmail.