From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/3970 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 22:53:06 -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> <199511141240.NAA20127@ssv4.dina.kvl.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035144784 28125 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:13:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:13:04 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from biggulp.callamer.com (biggulp.callamer.com [199.74.141.2]) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA19390 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:46:18 -0800 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by biggulp.callamer.com (8.6.12/8.6.9-callamer-rdw080995) with ESMTP id UAA07283 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:46:19 -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 ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:53:09 +0100 Original-Received: from coccyx.cis.ohio-state.edu (coccyx.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.14.3]) by news.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with ESMTP id WAA06873 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:53:07 -0500 Original-Received: (joseph@localhost) by coccyx.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.6.7/8.6.4) id WAA17631; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:53:07 -0500 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Per Abrahamsen's message of Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:40:23 +0100 Original-Lines: 32 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3970 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3970 Per Abrahamsen writes: >>>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph 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