Re: '=> gmane.emacs.help' as sender?

[Thorsten Jolitz]

asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) writes:

> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:39:36 +0200, Thorsten wrote:
>
>> Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org> writes:
>
>>> That's intended and the reason is that you probably know your own first
>>> and last name, and thus some other display is more useful for own
>>> articles.
>
>> I don't really understand why anybody would want this.
>
> When shown in a group of only emails from a single mailinglist, it
> doesn't add much, agreed. But in, say, a list of emails you have sent,
> it can be nice.
>
>> Is it only me who sees that sender string, or everybody else too?
>
> It is only you who sees it that way, in Gnus, because you know your
> name. Everybody else sees your name.
>
> I.e. in my Summary buffer I see:
>
>   OA+        [  34: Thorsten Jolitz        ] 
>   O +            [  20: => gmane.emacs.gnus.use] 
>
> While you would see something like:
>
>   OA+        [  34: => gmane.emacs.gnus.use] 
>   O +            [  20: Adam Sjøgren           ] 
>
> The point is that in my nnml+archive:news-2012 I see a list like this:
>
>   O. [  17: => gmane.emacs.gnus.gen] Re: I can haz cloud idea
>   O. [  24: => gmane.discuss       ] Re: Expiring Gwene groups?
>
> Which is nicer than a long list of just [  n: Adam Sjøgren     ] all
> the way down.

Ok, I begin to understand the rationale. Then it makes sense, and I
    might well go back to the original configuration. I thought
    everybody else would see => gmane.emacs.gnus.use too, and thus
    ignore the message due to its anonimity. 

>> Isn't it much more informative to associate messages with sender
>> names?
>
> Yes, but you presumably know your own name quite well, so the space is
> used for something more informative _in Gnus' display_ [only].
>
>                                  o o o
>
> This often pops up as a question quite often, so I do begin to wonder if
> the default should be that this functionality be turned off.

I can confirm that it is very confusing for the non-initiated, but on
  the other hand seems to be well thought out (once initiation
  happened). 

Thanks for your answer.

-- 
cheers,
Thorsten