Justin Bailey wrote:
When I joined the haskell-cafe mailing list, I was surprised to see the "reply-to" header on each message was set to the sender of a given message to the list, rather than the list itself. That seemed counter to other mailing lists I had been subscribed to, but I didn't think too much about it.
In addition to agreeing with the article "Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful, I want to remark that: A. This mailing list does not set the "Reply-To" header whatsoever. Not even to the author. When you hit "reply", the destination is taken from "From", not "Reply-To". Thus
I was surprised to see the "reply-to" header on each message was set to the sender
was inaccurate. B. This mailing list sets the "List-Post" header: List-Post: mailto:haskell-cafe@haskell.org Progressive mail clients honour this, e.g., Evolution. Thus you are given three buttons: reply -> "Reply-To" or "From" reply all -> all found addresses reply to list -> "List-Post" In my opinion this is the way to go. The semantics of "List-Post" is clear cut. The semantics of "Reply-To" is too overloaded to be relied on. I don't use Evolution - I am still at Thunderbird 1.5. It doesn't know the "List-Post" header. (But there may be plugins to add it.) But I do the little extra manual work of: reply all, then take out the author's address and just keep the list address. On the other hand, I completely don't mind receiving duplicates. In my opinion, if I choose to use dumb software, I should be the one making up for it, not ask the whole world to fudge semantics to please my dumb software. Lowest common denominators are evil.