🚀 go-pugleaf

In <92198.135741JIM@auvm.american.edu>, Jim McIntosh <jim@american.edu> writes:
> I can see your point that for people reading these same posts in a
> newsgroup, the option is to either reply publically by posting a response
> to the newsgroup or replying privately by writing a piece of e-mail. The
> Reply-To: generated by the mailing list, although reflecting the
> perferences of the list owner, really only serves to get in the way of
> the Usenet reader.

Right. That is why my gateway software deletes the Reply-To: header if
it points back to the mailing list, but not otherwise.  I personally
think that any LISTSERV<==>usenet gateway should delete these headers,
since they only cause problems on the usenet side.

> Any posts gated by the Penn State NetNews package (which is the one we
> run here to gate the bit.** newsgroups) inserts a line saying that the
> post came through a gateway. I've seen similar lines in posts gated at
> Berkeley. I would think that any well behaved gateway should do the same.

All the articles gated though kuhub should contain a Sender: field
indicating the original mailing list address. See news.software.anu-news
or rec.music.early for examples.
-- 
USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045
E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444