From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/3960 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Per Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll] Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:40:23 +0100 Message-ID: <199511141240.NAA20127@ssv4.dina.kvl.dk> References: <199511132349.AAA18160@ssv4.dina.kvl.dk> <199511140117.CAA19908@ssv4.dina.kvl.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035144775 28088 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:12:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no, ding@ifi.uio.no Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA17600 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 05:51:00 -0800 Original-Received: from elc1.dina.kvl.dk (elc1.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.228]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:41:09 +0100 Original-Received: from ssv4.dina.kvl.dk (ssv4.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.223]) by elc1.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id NAA01755; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:39:00 +0100 Original-Received: (abraham@localhost) by ssv4.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) id NAA20127; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:40:23 +0100 Original-To: Sudish Joseph In-reply-to: Sudish Joseph's message of 13 Nov 1995 23:55:58 -0500 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3960 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3960 >>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph 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.