On 3/2/2010 11:17 AM, Scott Raun wrote: > On Tue, March 2, 2010 10:04 am, Mike Miller wrote: > > 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? > > I second this view. I uses a lot of different email clients and some do not have the reply to list function. Also I'm lazy and would rather have the mail go to the list when I reply. If I want to send a private message then I will do the work of getting the address right. Joseph Key