On 271024, 11:06, John Hawkinson wrote: > I just want to point out a few things: > > . What is described as "two copies" is really two different messages that > contain some different information. > . Sometimes those differences are important to keep track of. > . When a mailing list delays delivery of a message substantially (hours, > days, moderation approval, &c.), knowing that information can be very useful. > . Sometimes a mailing list will alter a message in ways that matter (dropping > images or attachments, screwing up links, adding footers at the bottom). > > Personally, and I think I am an outlier, I very much want to see the multiple > copies. > > Although for the recent and medium-term past, I've used email systems where > my server does duplicate supression, and I absolutely detest it, and it > causes me some real frustrations. > > > It seems particularly weird that it's somewhat common for this suppression to > be done server-side, because it's really a client-side question. Of course, > as more and more users are using web-based email systems, the server and the > client are conjoined and overlap in weird ways, which doubtless has someting > do with it. > > > But if you wnated to do duplicate suppression in the client (mutt) in an > effective way, it would be worth some thought about how to design it well. > Ideally it would be something where duplicates were hidden but still > accessible if you wanted to dig deeper. Mutt is definitely not optimized to > make this easier. > >
your considerations are very interesting, I think that whatever solution is adopted it is still appropriate to avoid deleting the duplicate, perhaps archive it in another folder but not delete it. Stefano. -- Sent from my Linux debian
