moderated Re: Message Editor #suggestion

Jim Higgins

Received from Brian Vogel at 9/21/2018 03:44 AM UTC:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:33 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Not all groups are "conversation groups"... and with the ability to insert a"Reply-to:" header we have lost the ability to expect that responses are limited to group, sender or moderator (or some combination of those).
This is a case where the type of group is completely, utterly irrelevant. If you want what you say you want then manage a private mailing list within your e-mail client.

You need to go back and reread my original proposed feature request... as it has become painfully obvious that you either never understood it or else irrelevent conversation creep has distorted your memory of it.

Groups are meant, whether conversation/announcement only to go to ALL MEMBERS of a group when you reply to the group.

You keep saying that (and sayin gthat and saying that), but in doing so you're repeatedly ignoring the FACT that I've restated several (way too many now) times... namely that permits establishing groups where the reply default is to the sender of the message, NOT to the entire group. You're simply repeatedly expressing that opinion on a service ( that at very the highest level doesn't support your opinion.

You, for any you, don't get to pick and choose and shouldn't be able to via the group mechanism itself. You have lots of other very easy methods to carry on private conversations with select group members.

REREAD MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL! I don't want to carry on a private conversation. I want to know, if I compose a reply on the Gio site, where that reply is going. The reply address can be figleafed, but I want to know it's there and if it's not the only reply address, be able to delete it. If it's the only one and I don't want to reply to it, I can abort the reply.

I didn't like the earlier suggestion, since implemented as far as I can recall, allowing folks to insert their own "Reply-to:" headers... and my feature request is my way of being able to "opt out" of replying to those "Reply-to:" addresses that I now can't even see are there is composing a reply via the Gio interface.

I just don't get why people want to circumvent the core feature of a medium that has been in existence as long as this one.

You only think some sort of core feature is being circumvented because you refuse to understand that we already have groups in which all replies go only to the original sender, not to the group. You argue that that's not how "groups" should work, but the reality is that "Reply to Sender" (not to the entire group) is one option for how they do work on Gio if the group owner sets them up to do so.

I've been around since the days of Usenet. You never got to "pick and choose" who you were responding to when you sent a reply to a group message or created a new message going out to the group.

Really? I've been around since then also and I was always able to "pick and choose." I was always able to read an article ("messages" are called "articles" on Usenet) from let's say "" ("groups" on Usenet are called "newsgroups") and before sending a reply I could (as pointless as it may seem) change the newsgroup being sent to to "newsgroup.two" or whatever. I could also add additional newsgroups to the reply. I could also respond via email or via both Usenet and email. In fact, via both was the preferred reply method in the earlier days, but is seriously frowned upon now. And for messages sent to several newsgroups, I could choose to reply to some subset of the original newsgroups, or to add additional ones of my own. If you couldn't do this, then you had one heck of a lousy news reading program.

I, as a member of a group, have every right to expect that anything not sent as a private message is going out to the group, not the members of your choosing (for any you, not you personally).

I expected a reply to a Gio message to go to the group, sender, moderator (or some combination of those) up until the feature allowing senders to insert their own "Reply-to:" header was added. I didn't want that feature because we can't see when it's being used. My feature request would let us see when it's being applied. As such, in light of the ability to insert "Reply-to:" headers that direct replies to somewhere you currently can't see when composing a reply via the interface - rather than just to the entire group - I'd think you'd be in favor of this feature request.

Remember... figleafing of that soon to be (hopefully) visible reply address would be per the owner's settings for the group. Or they can all be figleafed regardless of owner settings.

Jim H

Join to automatically receive all group messages.