[Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Developers] Announcing Mailman 2.0 release candidate 2

[Bob Puff@NLE]

> I know we don't want to change this for 2.0, but IMHO, if we're going 
> to coerce reply-to, Mailman SHOULD. I've seen other systems that 
> rewrite an existing reply-to to x-reply-to, which at least keeps the 
> context. As the official "let the user decide" bigot here on the list 
> (grin), I do think that if you choose to coerce reply-to, it ought to 
> be unilateral and consistent. Either that, or always leave it to the 
> user and not coerce stuff...  I think doing it "except when..." 
> doesn't really add anything useful, but opens it to confusion...
> 
> The way I see it, if a user is on a list where reply-to is set to the 
> list (or some explicit value), their expectation is that it's going 
> to be set. Not set unless someone else sets it first. So from the 
> user expectation view, if it's going to be coerced, coerce it 
> unconditionally....

Chuq, I TOTALLY agree.  I have a couple lists that -MUST- have the REPLY-TO headers set to the list, and I need it to be that way no matter what the sender tries to do.  Sometimes people inadvertently set a "reply-to" in their email client.

Barry, please make it so! <g>

Bob