Re: More detailed post ...
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 02:38:25PM -0500, Fred Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 02:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > This isn't standard, nor is it a good idea. (Yahoo Groups is the only
> > place I know of that still uses it).
>
> mailman and ezmlm both do this. i'm not sure if it is the default, or
> it is just the case on the mailing lists that i'm subscribed to.
No clue on ezmlm, but Mailman does not set Reply-To: by default. (My
first exposure to this issue was, in fact, a debate on the
Mailman-Users list started by a suggestion that this default be
changed.)
> i hadn't read that, and it brings up a number of points I hadn't
> considered, but the majority of them are along the lines of "elm has a
> reply-to-list function, so this isn't a problem". however, it is a
> problem in many (popular) mailers which don't have a reply-to-list
> function.
My primary argument against setting Reply-To: for list mail has
nothing to do with whether MUAs have reply-to-list functions or not:
Accidentally sending a private reply to the list will be harmful
(both in terms of resource consumption and potential embarrassment)
far more frequently than accidentally sending a list reply privately.
The default behaviour should, therefore, be to reply privately, so as
to minimize the damage caused by errors.
--
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
- Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)
Reply to: