On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 08:21:32AM -1000, Joseph Dane wrote: > >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dave> 1) Yes, there is a reason. Do a search on "reply-to considered > Dave> harmful" for more information. > > do a search for 'reply-to munging considered useful', for what I feel > is a much more convincing argument.
Seen it, and I still fall to the 'harmful' side for the simple reason that reply-to makes mistakes more potentially problematic. If you forget to include the list when you intended to, it's no big deal - just resend. If you send a reply to the list that's intended to be private, there are plenty of cases where it could be somewhat embarrassing and a few where it could be outright Bad. > really. I'm on about the same number, and the split is more like > 40/60 for me, in favor of not setting reply-to. Well, that's still not "most" lists using it, which was the point I disputed anyhow... > also, most of the > lists I admin set reply-to, at the request of the people on the > lists. I host a dozen lists, all but one of which are extremely-low-volume, and have never had anyone ask about reply-to on any of them. But that just proves that not all users like/want the same thing. > in the end, the 'right' policy is the one chosen by the list admins, > since they have the right to set whatever policy they want. but this > does seem like an issue that just won't go away, ever. Agreed on both points. _Maybe_ it would go away if all common MUAs were to implement a reply-to-list feature, but even then, I doubt it.
