Reply-To vs. List-Post

[Alan Dayley]

June Tate-Gans said:
>
> That's just it, though. I right-clicked on the message and chose "Reply
> To Sender" not "Reply To All" -- I actually took about a second's worth
> of time out to think about which one was the one I wanted, which is why
> I remember it clearly. Unfortunately, I just assumed that Evolution --
> being an email client that gets quite a lot of use on this list -- would
> respond properly and didn't bother checking the To field (shame on me
> =op).
>
> Isn't the whole purpose of the Reply-To header one of helping email
> replies get to an address that is not normally routable from the rest of
> the public 'net? If so, why are we using Reply-To instead of just using
> List-Post and friends and leaving Reply-To off of the headers (unless
> explicitly requested by a poster)?
>
> My intent with this email is not to flame -- I've read enough Reply-To
> vs. List-* header flamewars to fill a football stadium -- I'm just
> genuinely curious as to why we're doing this sort of thing.

Last discussed in January, 2005:
http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/message/20050126.231606.e43bbb14.en.html

I like it the way it is since I usually like the replies to go back into
the list.  It annoys me on other lists that have it set the other way and
I later realize that the list did not get my reply.

But that is just me.

Alan