> Some people post to > the devel list that are not members, and request that they be "Cc:" into > every reply. IMHO, if someone isn't willing to go through the effort to join a list where people might help them; I'm not going to go out of my way to help them. meet me halfway, on the mailing list. > Other developers HATE, despise, and curse people who include them in the > "Cc:" as a result of poor use of email clients or simple laziness. seems like a good argument in favor of munging otherwise-unset Reply-To: headers. > This > complaint resides under the logic that the developer already subscribes > to the list and don't want two copies, and it is usually never a reason > to add "Reply-To" munging. why is it not a reason? setting unset Reply-To: headers will make users more inclined to reply only to the list. > Alternatively, if the discussion is to be taken off list, the "Reply-To" > field is a better seed for such redirection. then make sure the list software doesn't reset otherwise-set Reply-To: headers. > "Reply-To" is simply far too useful to go munging it with a listserver. then mung it when it's not otherwise used, and leave it alone when it is. Carl Soderstrom -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com