why doesn't have this list a "reply-to" ?

[Ben Finney]

Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> writes:

> It's not universal. Many people consider it harmful. Google
> "reply-to considered harmful" for a variety of opinions, for and
> against.

The arguments in support of munging have been defeated, since
2001. Munging the "Reply-To" field is in violation of standards, and
completely unnecessary. Any remaining lack is for the mail user agent
provider to fix, in accordance with standards.

    <URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html>

-- 
 \     "I wrote a song, but I can't read music so I don't know what it |
  `\    is. Every once in a while I'll be listening to the radio and I |
_o__)     say, 'I think I might have written that.'"  -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney