From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/3957 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sudish Joseph Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll] Date: 13 Nov 1995 23:55:58 -0500 Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science Sender: joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu Message-ID: 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 1035144772 28085 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:12:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Sudish Joseph , 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 WAA16101 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 22:31:55 -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 05:56:08 +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 XAA22910; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:55:54 -0500 Original-Received: (joseph@localhost) by bank.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.6.7/8.6.4) id XAA05818; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:55:59 -0500 Original-To: Per Abrahamsen , The Ding List X-Mailer: VM 5.95 (beta), GNU Emacs 19.28.1 In-Reply-To: Per Abrahamsen's message of Tue, 14 Nov 1995 02:17:05 +0100 Original-Lines: 42 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3957 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3957 Per Abrahamsen writes: >>>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph 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