[Homeroast] OT Test - input wanted

John Nanci john at chocolatealchemy.com
Fri Dec 24 12:36:06 CST 2010

Yeah, I know...sighing again.  ;)

BCC works though.

At 10:32 AM 12/24/2010, you wrote:
>Well, google knows what is good for you so just be quiet and sit 
>down. Google has a serious nanny state attitude.  Carefully read the 
>terms of service for the free e-mail sometime, all the way to the end.
>On 12/24/2010 12:26 PM, John Nanci wrote:
>>Beating a dead horse, I know. Yeah, looks like gmail is 'helping' me
>>with this 'feature' that can't be turned off. I really hate that and
>>apparently lots of others do too.
>>Trying to bcc myself. Too big brotherish for my taste.
>>Happy holidays everyone.
>>At 03:17 PM 12/13/2010, Yakster wrote:
>>>A little more detail on this can be found here:
>>>Basically, GMail is following the RFC5322 standard literally and treating
>>>the reply from a mailing list that has the same Message-ID as the item in
>>>it's sent folder as a duplicate and not showing it. If the mailing list
>>>changes the Message-ID when it is sent out, then you'd be able to see the
>>>copy being sent and verify that your message went out to the list. If
>>>all you'll see is the copy that you sent, which in some cases is added to
>>>the message thread, without knowing if it was actually sent out to the
>>>or not.
>>> From RFC5322:
>>>The "Message-ID:" field provides a unique message identifier that
>>>refers to
>>> > a particular version of a particular message. The uniqueness of the
>>> > identifier is guaranteed by the host that generates it (see below).
>>> > message identifier is intended to be machine readable and not
>>> > meaningful to humans. A message identifier pertains to exactly one
>>> > of a particular message; subsequent revisions to the message each
>>> > new message identifiers.
>>> >
>>>Note: There are many instances when messages are "changed", but those
>>> > changes do not constitute a new instantiation of that message, and
>>> > the message would not get a new message identifier. For example, when
>>> > messages are introduced into the transport system, they are often
>>> > with additional header fields such as trace fields (described in
>>> > 3.6.7) and resent fields (described in section 3.6.6). The addition
>>>of such
>>> > header fields does not change the identity of the message and
>>>therefore the
>>> > original "Message-ID:" field is retained. In all cases, it is the
>>> > that the sender of the message wishes to convey (i.e., whether this
>>>is the
>>> > same message or a different message) that determines whether or not the
>>> > "Message-ID:" field changes, not any particular syntactic difference
>>> > appears (or does not appear) in the message.
>>> >
>>>This is frustrating, and I've considered the suggestion of subscribing
>>>a second email address to see that my messages made it out, but so far it
>>>seems like most of my messages have made it through.
>>>Homeroast mailing list
>>>Homeroast at lists.sweetmariascoffee.com
>>>Homeroast community pictures -upload yours!) :
>>Homeroast mailing list
>>Homeroast at lists.sweetmariascoffee.com
>>Homeroast community pictures -upload yours!) :
>Homeroast mailing list
>Homeroast at lists.sweetmariascoffee.com
>Homeroast community pictures -upload yours!) : 

More information about the Homeroast mailing list