On Tue, March 2, 2010 10:04 am, Mike Miller wrote: > I think we should have the list do "Reply-To" because (1) I often get > replies sent to me and not to the list when they were clearly meant for > the list -- that happens more on this list than elsewhere, and (2) I'm > used to lists that use "Reply-To" so that the keystrokes I'm used to > performing will send my message "to all" on TCLUG instead of just to the > list (what I want). The argument against fixing this seems pretty weak to > me. Half the time I have a Reply-To-List function available, half the time I don't. This is due to restrictions on a corporate firewall - I have to use web-mail to read list mail from work, I use mutt at home. If you're going to tell me 'get a client that had Reply-To-List', then you better be able to tell me about one that I can use that has that. Does anyone know of a web-mail client that implements Reply-To-List? Personally, I find setting a Reply-To header to make the default reply go to the list to be something that encourages community. I joined to interact with many people, I _want_ to interact with many people - why make it harder? For a face-to-face analog - if I'm at a party, the default interaction is with anyone within ear-shot at the party. If I want private communication with a fellow attendee, I have to make an effort to achieve that privacy. I find mailing lists to have an analog to that - most mailing lists are set up because a community wants to talk to itself. Why make it harder to maintain the sense of community? -- Scott Raun sraun at fireopal.org