About to-addresses and followup [poll]

About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Sudish Joseph]

Quick poll, which of these two do you prefer?

Background:  If you have to-address set in a mail group, and you do a
followup, the original author isn't CC'ed a copy.  Instead, the
to-address replaces the authors name.  Note that the people who were 
CC'ed still get a copy, only the original author doesn't.

a) Add the original author to the CC list.  So we have to-address in
   the To header, and the original author in the CC header.
b) Add both to-address and original author to To: header.

I have a patch to fix this, it does (a) above.  But it struck me that
given the original meaning of To: and what other mailers do on a
followup, it makes more sense to do (b).  This might be a cosmetic
issue, but it would irk those who do differentiate on whether they
were to'ed or cc'ed a given message.

Opinions?

-Sudish

Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Per Abrahamsen]

The current behavior (no copy to the author on followups) make sense
on closed lists, i.e. lists where only subscribers may post.  I
suspect most lists are open though.  All the gnu lists are open, for
example.

I believe sgnus have (or will have) a to-list parameter which is only
used on new posts (i.e. when you type `a') and not on followups.  The
default followup algorithm will send to both the list and the author
if there is no to-address on the list.  The author in the To: header
and the list in the CC: header, as in this message.

PINEism in ding (was Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll])

[Sudish Joseph]

If to-address is set and you use "B m" a lot, you might end up posting
private email to a mailing list.  For e.g., you might have "B m"'ed a
private message into a group with to-address set.  If you then do a
followup, the list address gets added to the headers, it's then easy
to C-cC-c and embarass yourself.  This is not unlike Pine's behaviour
on seeing a Newsgroups: in mail.

I wrote:
> a) Add the original author to the CC list.  So we have to-address in
>    the To header, and the original author in the CC header.
> b) Add both to-address and original author to To: header.

Well, I put in (b) finally.  Joe Luser has a better chance of
preventing blunders like the above when he's presented with multiple
addresses in the To: header.

-Sudish

Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Sudish Joseph]

Per Abrahamsen writes:
> I believe sgnus have (or will have) a to-list parameter which is only
> used on new posts (i.e. when you type `a') and not on followups.  The
> default followup algorithm will send to both the list and the author
> if there is no to-address on the list.  The author in the To: header
> and the list in the CC: header, as in this message.

I agree with you that it's much better to have the list address in the
CC: field than in the To: field (the headers on this message look a
tad ugly :-).  But it seems redundant to have both a to-address and a
to-list parameter.  We can achieve the same functionality by simply
ignoring to-address on followups, limiting its scope to just new
posts.

Alternatively, to avoid the Pineism I mentioned in another message, we
might retain the current meaning of to-address (ie., use it on
followups) and prompt the user if we detect a followup to a mail that
didn't have (mail-strip-quoted-names to-address) in it's original
headers ("This message wasn't send to" to-address ", should we Cc that
address?").  This would cover all possibilities, I think?

-Sudish

Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Per Abrahamsen]

>>>>> "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.

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

If the message you reply to have the `Mail-Copies-To:' header
suggested by Lars, that should be able to overwrite the default
algorithm for that folder.  Then you could set `Mail-Copies-To: never'
when writing to a list you subscribe to, and `Mail-Copies-To:
your@address' when writing to a list you don't subscribe to.

Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Sudish Joseph]

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

Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Per Abrahamsen]

>>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph <joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:

SJ> Actually, I'd submit that the present behaviour is the opposite of
SJ> correct behaviour for closed lists.  

I defined closed two messages back in the thread.

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

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

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. 

SJ> In addition, I'd expect
SJ> that such lists would definitely set Reply-To: in all mailings.

That would really be bad, since you couldn't make a private reply
then. 

SJ> Only use to-address in selecting a To: header for fresh
SJ> posts to that list (via `a' or `m').

Not via `m'!  Pushing `m' doesn't post an article in a news group and
shouldn't mail to the list in a mail group.  That would break the
symmetry between mailing lists and newsgroups.

Re: About to-addresses and followup [poll]

[Sudish Joseph]

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