It is good to hear other points of view on this.
So far, I have had one negative response which quoted
the following URL as arguments against.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Now, I have found arguments in favour at:
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
http://www.unicom.com/BBS/bbs_forum.cgi?forum=replyto&read=000083-000000.msg&session=388093b65c6e1c84&use_last_read=on&last_read=0
IMHO, it is useful and it saves me time when processing email in "elm".
I like it on mailing lists that do add a Reply-To: header.
Any other views?
--
cheers
paul http://acm.org/~mpb
>Hello,
>
>This request is directed to the administrator of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Please can you arrange for the "Reply-To:" header on postings to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] to be set to:
>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>I have seen this done on other mailing lists and it is very useful
>because it makes filing/archiving very simple. For example, in elm,
>I simply hit "save" and it gets files under "info-afs".
>
>Without this, we have to type in "info-afs" each time we file a posting.
>
>Thanks!
>--
>paul http://acm.org/~mpb
>
> `What one person finds valuable others do not even notice.
> And they do not notice that they do not notice.'
> -- Scott Kim, `Interdisciplinary Communication', in `The Art of [HCI] Design'
