Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Sudish Joseph <joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu>]

Per Abrahamsen writes:
>>>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph <joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
SJ> But it seems redundant to have both a to-address and a
SJ> to-list parameter.

> The current behavior is better for closed list.  For example, if I had
> set to-address for the ding folder, you wouldn't receive two copies of
> this message, as you will now.

Actually, I'd submit that the present behaviour is the opposite of
correct behaviour for closed lists.  If a list is closed in the sense
that only authorized people can post to it, this whole issue is
irrelevant, coz the Sender's message will not reach the list.  If the
list is closed in the sense that only people on the list may receive
the message, the actual desired behaviour is to not include originally
CC'ed addresses in your reply; by all rules of netiquette the original
sender should receive a reply.

> As I see it, to-address should be set on closed lists and to-list
> should be set on open lists.  

I don't think GNUS should confuse this by adding another parameter.
Closed lists are just a very special case.  In addition, I'd expect
that such lists would definitely set Reply-To: in all mailings.

I think your original suggestion is much better.  Don't use to-address
(or any other parameter) when following up.  The old behaviour worked
just fine--since you received it from the list, the list name will be
there in the headers (in all except a vanishingly small set of cases,
anyway).  Only use to-address in selecting a To: header for fresh
posts to that list (via `a' or `m').

This would also avoid the possibility of sending mail to a list when
you didn't want to in the first place (the "B m" scenario I outlined
elsewhere).

Mailing lists aren't the same as newsgroups, insofar as the poster's
expectations of the prospective audience is.  Or in how she expects to
receive replies (in a public forum/via personal mail).  Why treat them
in the same manner?

-Sudish