Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>]

>>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph <joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:

SJ> Actually, I'd submit that the present behaviour is the opposite of
SJ> correct behaviour for closed lists.  

I defined closed two messages back in the thread.

SJ> If a list is closed in the sense
SJ> that only authorized people can post to it, this whole issue is
SJ> irrelevant, coz the Sender's message will not reach the list.  

Huh?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

If you reply to a closed list, we can assume both the original sender
and you subscribe to the list.  With the `to-list' semantics, the
original sender will receive two copies of the reply, one through the
list and one directly from you.  With the `to-address' semtics, the
original sender will only receive one copy. 

SJ> In addition, I'd expect
SJ> that such lists would definitely set Reply-To: in all mailings.

That would really be bad, since you couldn't make a private reply
then. 

SJ> Only use to-address in selecting a To: header for fresh
SJ> posts to that list (via `a' or `m').

Not via `m'!  Pushing `m' doesn't post an article in a news group and
shouldn't mail to the list in a mail group.  That would break the
symmetry between mailing lists and newsgroups.