I'd bet the following is news to nobody.
Some of us Dislike setting Reply-To: at all.
If it exists, there's an expectation that it should be followed. Some
folks will want to reply to the sender, others to the list. So no
matter which way is chosen, one group will be disappointed. An email
client that makes it difficult for the user to override Reply-To: ...
makes it ... difficult.
*Not* setting Reply-To: lets the recipient decide.
The downside there is that it means the recipient has to put a bit of
thought in to where the reply should go.
But at least this way, at least some of us believe that the
responsibility lands where it should.
On 2/17/2024 12:29 AM, Roger Price via Nut-upsuser wrote:
I recently wrote to the list. The distributed message had the following
headers:
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 19:22:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Roger Price via Nut-upsuser <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Roger Price <[email protected]>
To: nut-upsuser Mailing List <[email protected]>
Subject: ...
Note that the Reply-To goes back to the original poster, not the list.
Many mailing lists encourage the subscribers to "keep the list traffic
on the list", rather than wandering off into private discussions. The
nut-upsuser setup has exactly the opposite effect.
Is it the intention to send the subscibers into private conversation?
If not, and I suspect not, then the current Reply-To looks like a bug.
Any replies to the list please. Roger
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsuser mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsuser mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
