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

[Ken Snider]

Rob Munsch wrote:

> 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.

And again I ask the same question - how is it beneficial to have the default 
response characteristic of the list require this effort? Regardless of the 
ease at which the action can be performed, does it make sense to perform it 
every time if there is no benefit to the default case outside of ideology?

> 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.

As (I assume) you are not the maintainer of *this* list, I will humbly 
submit that only the list maintainer can define what is the "most 
infuriating" thing for him. And, the very fact that there *are* lists 
configured this way would suggest that, in some cases at least, this 
discussion *has* gone somewhere, no?

>> 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

Rather a weak argument, especially in the case of non-discussed, but 
informative posts (posts announcing tools available that may be relevant and 
of use to list-members, posts by Dell outlining new offerings or updates 
that do not themselves spark discussion, to name a few I can think of off 
the top of my head).

> 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.

Actually, there is one: RFC 822 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html). 
Perhaps you've heard of it? Relevant excerpt:

"A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message 
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: 
include the address of that service in the "Reply-To" field of all messages 
submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference 
submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their 
own."

-- 
Ken Snider