--On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:35 AM -0500 "Barry A. Warsaw"
>>>>>> "NS" == Nick Simicich <njs @
> NS> 95% plus of the people who get this mail do not want the extra
> NS> copy, they want the list copy. You are part of the 5%. What
> NS> Rich, and I, and 19 out of 20 want is the norm.
> Reply-To munging isn't necessary here. The list s/w can suppress the
> list copy if the member is explicitly mentioned in a recipient header.
> It can also collapse CC headers for subsequent postings. I'd suspect
> that of those 19, that behavior would be just fine for 18 of them.
> For the others, something like actual MUA support for Mail-Copies-To
> would be sufficient.
This is kind of a band-aid, though, and a risky one. For one thing, just
because a list server THINKS it sees a member address mentioned in a
recipient header, doesn't actually mean that the message got there. The
address in question might be set up to only allow mail from the list server,
in fact that's a common spam protection technique. In that case the Cc'd
member would get no copy at all.
Also, it doesn't take Digests into consideration. Unless the list software
is custom building digests for each digest-mode member, you pretty much have
to send them everything, whether they were Cc'd in the original or not. And
in fact it can be quite useful for people who do receive the Digest but are
having an intra-day exchange of postings on some topic to Cc each other as
they go, rather than wait a day for the answer.