On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jim Crumley wrote: > On Thu, March 4, 2010 10:33 am, Mike Miller wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jim Crumley wrote: >> >>> On Wed, March 3, 2010 6:25 pm, Mike Miller wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Jim Crumley wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:17:36PM -0600, Mike Miller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, accidentally sending to list doesn't happen much now, but it >>>>> will likely happen more if this change is made. >>>> >>>> More than never? And what are we going to see? I'm on a bunch of >>>> lists that do Reply-To munging and we aren't having a problem. >>> >>> Yep. Never. Not once. > <snip> >> >> OMG! The horrors. It happened twice in 2001 and then gain in 2003. >> Let's review these errors starting with this one... > > That's what found in 5 minutes of googling. You said no one ever sent > to the list by accident. What I really meant was that I was not noticing any such events. It's hard to remember such non-issues, but you did find one from as recently as 2003, so let's say I was wrong to conclude that it never happens with the current configuration. But what is happening now is not the issue. The issue is what would happen if a change were to be made in Reply-To. To find out, I think you should look at other lists. I don't see a problem. This is a list where nearly all replies are meant for the list. Besides, if someone were to write, "I hope you're coming to the dog fight. We'll have lots of coke and hookers." He can later say "Sorry about that. I should explain lest my meaning be misconstrued: 'Dog Fight' is a new WWI video game, 'Coke' is a soft drink and 'Hookers' are a new kind of snack food. I've got to remember to use caps!" See? No problem. Mike