On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:12:17AM -0600, Brian wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > > as for me, count me in on the side of munging the Reply-To: header. makes > > replying to the list much more convenient. I hit 'reply' to reply to the > > list; and if I feel like personally bothering the original poster with my > > drivel, as well as the list in general, I hit 'reply to all'. > > these are the common cases. > > Hmm.. this goes against what I perceived to be the general mailing list > logic. To reply to the sender, hit reply. To reply to the list, reply to > all. This is the way I was taught to set up lists and they way I always > do it. I thought that was just kind of accepted as the method everyone > used. > > Is there an RFC on this anywhere? Apparently, it is a controversial topic. Searching google for "reply-to considered harmful" turns up some interesting results. One page claims that reply-to munging is helpful and quotes an excerpt from RFC-822 that appears to sanction reply-to munging for mailing lists: http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml On the other hand, another page claims that reply-to munging is harmful and that the relevant RFCs (822 and 1123) are poorly specified and defective: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html You can count me in favor of doing reply-to munging on the tclug lists. Joel