Dear Ken.Fuchs@bench.com,
In message AA28F077645B324881335614E4F7C4284A4A00@win-ex01.bench.com you wrote:
A mailing list server typically only archives messages that it actually serves, so a separate archiving server subscribed to
Typically. Assume that the mailing list archive on list.denx.de will include the old archives from SF, too. It doesn't yet, but it will.
both lists would be needed to ensure entire threads are archived together whose messages have been split between the u-boot-users and u-boot mailing list servers.
This is an implication of the sentence "Please post new messages only to the new mailing list address".
Actually it means what it says.
It doesn't necessarily mean what you thought it meant:
I though it to mean what it says it means :-)
It says "new" messages implying that non-new messages can be posted
Non-new messages would mean to re-send old messages - that its obviously is pretty stupid thing to do.
as well (A valid interpretation of a new message is a message with a _new_ topic/subject, starting a _new_ thread; a valid
No. A new message is a new message, independent of any thread it belongs to, wheter this may be an old, existing thread r a new one.
interpretation of non-new messages is responses to old messages).
I strongly disagree. You have to send a new message to respond to an old one.
The new mailing list server is perhaps broken in the same way as the old server:
Your response to my post was sent directly to me without the [U-Boot] tag in the subject line. My Mailman profile is
What makes you think the mailing list server is to blame for that? If I send a message to you, with the list on cc:, the list server has no chance of interfering with the message I send to you.
configured such that the server must send all mailing list messages to me despite my address already being in a To or CC header. However, the old server didn't do this and neither does the new server.
Are you absolutely sure that the list server is doing this? And not your own mail server on your receiving end?
Has anyone else experienced this same problem with the new server?
None that I know of.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk