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

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

Probably because we seem to be discussing different issues. :-) My
only worry here is who receives a copy of any replies made to a
message--eliminating the sender seems cruel to me when CC'ed addresses
aren't.  Yours seems to be to eliminate duplicates for closed lists.
I'd assumed that you were refering to the problem of non-subscribers
receiving copies of messages they shouldn't.  So, read the above like
this: "Since only subscribers may post to the list, messages from
non-subscribers will not reach the list.  In which case, dropping the
From: address in replies will not serve any purpose whatsoever."
(The "purpose" there refers to confidentiality, not duplicate
elimination.) 


> 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. 

I confess that I'm not too excited about having to deal with two
separate options just so that people on closed lists will not receive
duplicates.  If the issue were confidentiality, I'd agree...

-Sudish