Reply-To vs. List-Post

[Dale Farnsworth]

In article <1132268240.15641.22.camel at localhost.localdomain> you write:
> 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.

I had no part in setting up this list, but I know that many lists are
configured this way to encourage more traffic on the list.  My thinking
has always been just the opposite.  They want to remove the possibility
of accidentally replying directly to the original poster.

As a list reader, I'd like just the opposite, because I think the
signal-to-noise ration will go up if the default is to reply to
the poster.

-Dale