From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/3959 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sudish Joseph Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll] Date: 14 Nov 1995 03:17:46 -0500 Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science Sender: joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035144774 28087 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:12:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:12:54 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from moonbase_v.moonvalley.com (moonbase_v.moonvalley.com [204.212.162.1]) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA16685 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 01:43:10 -0800 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by moonbase_v.moonvalley.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA08976 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 01:32:38 -0800 Original-Received: from news.cis.ohio-state.edu (news.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.8.50]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:18:02 +0100 Original-Received: from bank.cis.ohio-state.edu (bank.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.16.2]) by news.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with ESMTP id DAA02771; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 03:17:50 -0500 Original-Received: (joseph@localhost) by bank.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.6.7/8.6.4) id DAA09327; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 03:17:47 -0500 Original-To: steve@miranova.com (Steven L. Baur), The Ding list X-Mailer: VM 5.95 (beta), GNU Emacs 19.28.1 In-Reply-To: steve@miranova.com's message of 13 Nov 1995 23:20:59 -0800 Original-Lines: 26 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3959 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3959 Steven L Baur writes: >>>>>> "Sudish" == Sudish Joseph writes: Sudish> Duplicate elimination is a simple process with most Sudish> filters. > And the simplest approach (as with procmail) has its drawbacks. What > confuses me greatly is mistaking the private copy of the public > version (either to a mailing list or on Usenet), as private e-mail. > I'll get over it. There's no such thing as a "private/public" copy of duplicated email. Each copy is the same as the other, barring Received: and any other headers added in-transit. Both copies contain exactly the same information, and have the same message-id. This is not true of newsgroups and mailed copies of postings. Steve> How will gnus-auto-mail-to-author relate? Sudish> It doesn't enter the picture for mailgroups. > Why shouldn't it? Besides, if you base the behavior on a variable, > won't it be easier to get variant behavior out of the (local) > variables of the Score file, or off the group hook? gnus-followup-to-function exists for this very purpose. -Sudish