Michael Wallis wrote: > Bob Daverin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why isn't the mailing list set up so the reply-to address is >> the list and not the person who sent the note? > You can use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to send email to > the list, so I'm not sure that the challenge is. I understand what he means. On the BASFA list, if you want to reply to the list, you have to hit "reply-all" instead of "reply" -- otherwise, you end up replying only to the sender. [For the benefit of the entire audience.] Many mailing lists -- including most of those that I'm subscribed to -- are set up so that the default reply-to is the list, not the sender. This does occassionally lead to someone who meant to reply privately sending an embarassing message to the entire list. On the other hand, many people object strongly to "reply-to munging," and indeed, one of the lists to which I'm subscribed (one of the L.A.con IV staff mailing lists) had someone recently had a spate of messages triggered by a member dropping off because as a matter of principle he refuses to be a member of a list that sets the default reply-to as the list, rather than the sender. I don't have the strong "religious" opinion on reply-to "munging" that many people seem to have; however, unless I've set something up as an "announcements only" list (in which case only the administrators and moderators are allowed to post to it anyway), I usually set the reply to the list, not the sender. My theory is that such lists are _discussions_ and therefore by default you want your reply to go to the whole community, not just the original sender. Kevin
