Re: Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ...

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 07:35:41AM -0500, Jim Seymour wrote:
>
> Chris Green <chris(at)areti(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 07:34:28PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
> > > much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
> > >
> > Personally I'm against it because it means that I'll often get two
> > replies when people reply to my postings. However it's not a big
> > issue for me.
>
> Actually, it would result in just the opposite.
>
It depends on the mailing list software, you could be right. However
on another mailing list where I'm a member I get two copies of
messages when people do 'Reply to all' simply because I have a
Reply-To: of my own set. (I have Reply-To: set so that if people want
to send me a personal reply it gets to a mailbox I will read. If you
reply to my From: address the message will end up in a catch-all,
low-priority, probably junk mailbox).

This is a perpetual problem, if people all used the same MUA and
(assuming it has the capability) all used the 'reply to list' command
to reply to the list everything would be wonderful! :-)

--
Chris Green (chris(at)areti(dot)co(dot)uk)

"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."