list-admin :: default to 'reply-to' the list ?

[Rob Munsch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ken Snider wrote:
> Daniel Silverman wrote:
>> Many people want to munge Reply-To headers. They believe it makes  
>> reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really  
>> does neither, and is a very poor idea. 
> 
> Really?
> 
> It reduces email traffic, supporting the "principle of minimal-bandwidth", 
> and is doubly important in today's spam-laden morass that is email.
> 
> Without a munged Reply-To header, your choice is a) reply to the author, or 
> b) generate two emails, one to the author, one to the list. How is this 
> sensible if the vast majority of responses really only need one destination 
> - the list?

Thunderbird:

1) hit reply-all
2) doubleclick the non-list address
3) quickly tap Delete twice
4) remaining line is the list, click twice to make it "to" instead of "cc"

result: one single email, which you are reading now.

Honestly, this debate has already raged on several lists, frex exim's.
Nothing is going to infuriate an email engineer (or dev!) more than "why
can't we violate lots of rules and principles to make life a tiny,
infinitely small amount easier for myself."  It will get nowhere, i
promise you.  It's all been shouted out before.

> The "nodupes" setting in mailman is misleading and dangerous - if mailman 
> sees your address on the header, with this option set, it will not send you 
> a copy of your own post. How, then, are you supposed to verify the post even 
> made it to the list?

When someone replies :D

> Lastly - principle of minimal effort: why support the default case that, for 
> the vast majority of cases, requires a poster to delete a recipient? 
> wouldn't it make more sense to have the list default reply actually go where 
> the vast majority of posts are *intended* to go?

you misuse "intended" here.  The sender is the 'intended' recpient;
lists are fake things we made up and are the exception, not the rule.
Maybe you could write an RFC to accommodate the cases of (legitimate)
mass mails.

- --
Rob Munsch
Solutions For Progress IT
www.solutionsforprogress.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFSNdnBvBcJFK6xYURAsbJAJ9yxZd5y2DRgv4HleaUqo5QNEBXuACdEyZF
c0L3Bz5CV6FHAyolYl31gfE=
=wbVL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----