🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul16.005647.10015@mits.mdata.fi>, karttu@mits.mdata.fi (Antti
Karttunen) says:
>Of course we don't need no any additional Original-Sender field in header,
>because that information is already in From: field. The problem is that
>when I reply with R command, and news software takes the mailing list
>address from the Reply-To: field into To: field, I have nowhere the
>original address of the sender, if he hasn't included it in his signature.

Posts coming from a Listserv mailing list (such as those in the bit.**
newsgroups) should have a valid From: address, as well as a Reply-To:
address which is configured at the option of the list owner. If the list
owner prefers that replies be directed back to the original poster then
they specify that in the list definition and the Reply-To: field will
contain the e-mail address of the poster. If the list owner prefers any
follow-up discussion appear on the list, then the list is configured so
that the Reply-To: field points back to the list address.

People who receive the posts through the mailing list have the option,
then, of writing directly to the sender or to the list, or accepting the
preference of the list owner regarding additional discussions and
honoring the Reply-To: address.

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.

>Anyway, I think it's important that when people set up the gateways, they
>inform about it to newsgroup users, and make clear whether the gateway is
>uni- or bidirectional.

I agree completely. Gateways to and from the bit.** newsgroups, as well
as any additional gateways I've set up here (ROOTS-L to soc.roots, for
example) have only been established following the completion of a
procedure which calls for proper notification of the list owner, the list
subscribers and the newsgroup readers. Only if there are no substantial
objections are the gateways established.

An additional point: there are no uni-directional gateways in the bit.**
groups. When people have asked about them I've strongly discouraged them
and suggested moderated newsgroups as a prefered solution. The biggest
concern on the part of the list owner and subscribers is that Usenet
readers have been known to, um, er, generate inappropriate posts at
times, and the mailing people want to protect their list as much as
possible. Moderated newsgroups allow the list owner to intercept the
inappropriate while still allowing the Usenet readers to contribute to
the ongoing discussions.

>  So I still suggest using the header for that. If we could get some
>"standardized" gateway-header, the information could be contained
>in one line, and the finesses of the reply and follow-up commands could
>be then explained in FAQ files.
>So just something like:
>
>Gatewayed-from: foobar-l (unidirectional)

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.

>Hmm, with newsgroups solely created for gatewaying the mailing lists to
>the Usenet (like various bit.listserv.* groups) would it be good idea
>to make that group "pseudo-moderated", i.e. set the moderators address
>to be the same as mailing list address, so every follow-up would surely
>end to list. (Which itself could be moderated or not.)
>  Maybe this is already done with some gateway lists, I don't know.

Any posts coming from a Listserv list are posted to the appropriate news
group (ie, approved tags are inserted). When the mailing list is
unmoderated, the corresponding newsgroup is unmoderated and any posts are
sent by the gateway site to the mailing list. When the mailing list is
moderated or the list owner has a concern about Usenet rowdiness, the
newsgroup is moderated and the moderator address points to the list
owner.
---
Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA