On Sunday 20 December 2009 15:04:12 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 20-12-2009 15:01:30 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 December 2009 09:49:09 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > On 15-12-2009 09:54:36 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > > > I will be following up discussions on various mailing lists to
> > > > prepare the agenda. If you already want to suggest topics feel free
> > > > to reply to this thread. You'll get a second chance with the meeting
> > > > reminder approximately two weeks before the meeting. I will be
> > > > sending a message about the two topics which did not make it last
> > > > time and explain why. I should have sent that much earlier but
> > > > well... you know...
> > >
> > > I'd like to council to discuss the current *$^&!! policy of
> > > -dev-announce and -dev.  I'd propose to at least implement the
> > > following behaviour such that I:
> > > - don't have to see some mails 3 (!) times and many 2 times
> > > - don't get lost where the mail is/was
> > > - get broken threading because the original mail was sent to another
> > >   list
> >
> > get a sane mail client that automatically handles messages with duplicate
> > ids and references.  cant say ive ever noticed a problem with kmail.
> 
> and gmane or even archives.g.o?

gmane is f-ed up already irregardless of what we do.  it eats cross-posted e-
mails for breakfast and doesnt tell anyone.

as for archives.g.o, file a bug if it isnt handling threading within a list 
properly.  i dont really see how your proposal here would break archives.g.o 
anyways.  someone sends an e-mail to both dev and dev-announce, it has the 
same id.  people respond and they all go to dev.  either way, archives.g.o 
should be seeing a sane thread on dev.
-mike