Reply-To header

[Rocco Moretti]

Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Peter Decker wrote:
> 
>>On 10/3/05, Roel Schroeven <rschroev_nospam_ml at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>On lists like this, where everyone benefits by sharing information, it
>>seems pretty lame to hide behind purist arguments about Reply-To:
>>headers. The default behavior should be the one most useful to the
>>list. Think for a moment how many useful bits of information you've
>>missed because the default for this list it to make conversations
>>private.
> 
> 
> The default of this list is not to make conversations private; in fact
> the list doesn't have any default. It's you who chooses to send replies
> to the original author, to the list, or both, by choosing which button
> to press in your mail client.

It's a sad but unavoidable fact that most people, in the regular course 
of emailing, never use (nor have reason to use) the "reply to all" 
button. In any "normal" email exchange, hitting the reply button does 
what you want it to. As a consequence of this, a large portion of the 
e-mail using public never thinks to do more than hit the "reply" button. 
It's great that *you* and *I* are technically savvy enough to hit the 
"reply all/list" button when needed, but the other people on the list 
might not be. I've seen mailing lists reduced to near uselessness 
because of it: you get people posting questions to the list, but no 
replies, because all of the people replying are responding by pressing 
"reply" and sending private messages.

FWIW, I use the newsgroup version of this list, and the "reply" button 
on my mail/newsreader does what I want it too - reply to the list only. 
(I hate getting an additional personal email for a publicly posted response)