Re: Reply to header

[Brian Mathis]

Hendrik Mangels wrote:
> Suso Banderas (2004-11-02, 17:35):
>
> > > > While we're on the subject of modifying the screen list. It would be
> > > > nice if a Reply-To: address@hidden header line was added.
> > >
> > > http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-3.html#lists
> >
> >  Sigh, I know.  I already use G and r for replying, I was trying to
> > avoid using L.  I guess I just don't think of mutt in that way (using
> > different reply keys for different things).  Most other lists I'm on
> > just have a Reply-To: header instead.  I thought I might be able to get
> > you guys to agree to do this.  But if not, no big deal.
>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> Hendrik

Yes yes, that site is very popular.  It absolves anyone from making a
real argument for or against Reply-To.  None of the arguments presented
there are incredibly strong, and certainly none are strong enough to
uphold the blanket statement "no one should ever use Reply-To".

There's also:
    http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

Bottom line is that every list should make that decision on their own.

My view is that most lists *should* be using Reply-To:, because the main
point of a mailing list is to talk to everyone on the list.  Replying to
a specific author is rare, while replying to a thread is very common.
I've been on many lists with frequent messages that start like:

    Please use the 'reply all' button to send messages to the
    list.  I'm forwading your message to the list because I
    think you meant to send it there.

The frequency of those posts is a good indicator that people use the
reply button most of the time.  The expectation that people will change
their behavior by using a special button to reply to a list instead of
the regular reply button is flawed.  You cannot expect people to change
ingrained behavior because of some esoteric and dubious argument about
correctness.