There is, actually, a listserv option to override (ignore) the reply-to. The listserv admin has opted not to make the change for the reasons given below (which I'm not sure I agree with, but there you have it...)
Frank WHEN REPLYING TO THIS EMAIL PLEASE USE REPLY-ALL SO THAT A REPLY WILL BE SENT TO THE LISTSERV. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jean Snow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:02 PM Subject: Re: yahoo and ASSEMBLER-LIST Yeah, this is why, after thinking about it, I did not change this list to Reply-To= List,Ignore Sometimes personal replies are desirable/necessary. See the recent "Happy Gilmore" thread: I wanted to get further discussion off-list to annoy fewer people. As Steve Comstock suggested, yahoo users may have to work a bit harder to get around yahoo's flaws. js On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On 2013-04-16 15:43, Frank Swarbrick wrote: >> >> What follows is a copy that I sent to the list owner last August: >> >> Reply-to= List,Respect >> >> My guess is that it should be changed to this: >> Reply-To= List,Ignore >> which is how it is configured for the IBM-MAIN listserv: >> http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL2=2491&R=535&[email protected] >> > No!!!! > > Because some mailers are broken, Darren introduced a breakage, > intended to be offsetting in IBM-MAIN. As a result, when I > want private replies (as for a survey question, for which I have > agreed to summarize back to the list), I can't get private > replies. > > Yahoo! is broken; ASSEMBLER-LIST is good. Don't break the latter > to match the former. > > -- gil > > >________________________________ > From: Jon Perryman <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 6:17 PM >Subject: Re: AT&T list-related warning (was:Test message; ...) > > >Paul is saying that the REPLY-TO: coming from the list server is causing the >problem. It's not an additional problem. > >I think we are on an outdated list server. Most heavily used servers now >replace the REPLY-TO: if specified in the incoming Email header. This list >will only add the REPLY-TO: (not replace). If a REPLY-TO exists, then it does >nothing which from my perspective is a bug. REPLY-TO must always be this list >server. > >AT&T now inserts a REPLY-TO: regardless whether it is needed. Since they felt >they would occasionally need it, this method creates a consistent environment >for their Emails that they can easily document. > >Jon Perryman > >________________________________ >From: Russell West <[email protected]> > >________________________________ >> From: Paul Gilmartin >> >> BTW, did you supply the "Reply-To: Russell West ..." header, or >> did AT&T bestow that also on you? > >> -- gil > >It seems that AT&T added that as well. Just one more change for the worse to >heap on the already large stack. > >I have been complaining to AT&T for two weeks already, but things only seem to >get worse. It seems AT&T believes in the practice of doing minimal testing and >then using their customers as guinea pigs to find the bugs competent testing >would have already revealed. It looks like I'll have to find another ISP and >start migrating my multiple email account names. Then I will be able to >completely sever my AT&T business. > >/russ > >
