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

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 12:49:46 +0000,
Chris Green <chris(at)areti(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
>
> 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! :-)

I think using mail-followup-to is better than having people do reply to list.

I think the main benefit to having reply-to point to the list is for supporting
clueless users on lists (who don't seem to understand the difference between
reply to sender and reply to all) and I don't think we have too many of those
here.

When I am subscribed to lists that force reply-to to point to the list,
I have my mail filter remove those headers so that things will work
normally (other than not allowing a sender to use reply-to of their own).

Reply-to would be especially bad for the postgres lists as nonsubscribers
can post and that the list servers are often slow.

People who don't want separate copies of messages should set the
mail-followup-to header to indicate that preference. This isn't perfect
since not all mail clients support this and some set up is required to
make your client aware of the list. It is also possible for mailing list
software to handle this preference for you (by not sending copies to addresses
on the list that appear in the recipient headers), but I don't know if the
software in use has that capability.