>You defined your list as 'SUBSCRIPTION= OPEN',
>so that is one consequence of *your* choice.
>
You're right from a technical viewpoint (as your very detailed
analysis shows).
 
>IMHO, their actions were *not* unprofessional nor inappropriate.
>
Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying but I think it's
unfortunate to leave it here.  I can think of several reasons why a
'subscription=open' list would want to know when it's being
gatewayed.
 
1)  I'd want to understand what the headers would look like.  In
other words, would anyone from the gateway be able to post without
intervention (I use editor =me,(listname))?
 
2)  Eventually, someone on the other side of the gateway will send
an unsubscription message to you.  Knowing the gateways that exist
might help you give them a clue.
 
3)  If there are lots of subscribers from the same node as the
gateway, you MIGHT even want to tell them about the gateway.
 
4)  Other?
 
I bet 'my' list has at least a dozen redistributors and I don't
remember any of them asking my permission or even notifying me.  I
can usually tell which ones they are by user name, though.  At the
very least it's not very courteous and I might go as far as
unprofessional.
 
I should add that my judgment is somewhat tainted by the fact that
'my' send =private list was gatewayed to usenet without my
knowledge.  (This was before Jim McIntosh took AU's gateway over).
That did upset me somewhat.  Usenet news is big enough so IMHO you
should NOT gateway any list to it without listowner's consent.
 
Joe Moore
South Dakota State University