On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 at 10:47:42AM -0400, Tom Burke wrote:
> One downside of "Reply-to= List" is that if someone blithely hits the
> reply buttons to send a personal reply to the sender, it will go to
> the whole list.  "Reply-to= Sender" avoids this problem.  But folks
> then have to "reply all" (and delete the sender's address from the
> To: or Cc: field) to reply just to the whole list.  It may be worth
> it if you manage to avoid a bunch of personal email traffic.  ...TB

Competent mail programs (MUAs) allow the user to have a consistent method
of replying to the list or the author with a single keystroke and do this
regardless of how the list manager sets "Reply-to."

Mutt does this by keeping a table of lists that the user is subscribed to.
This allows it to always reply to the list (only) with "L," to the author
with "r," and to both with "g" (group).

It's very nice to have a uniform interface and not have to remember how a
particular list is set, or to delete an unwanted address.

BTW, RFC822 mandates that only the original sender may set "Reply-to:"

There's a good essay explaining why lists should NOT be set
"Reply-to = List" at:

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

A reasonable compromise is "Reply-to = List, respect".

Regards,

-rex
--
  I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of
  the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and
  most obvious truth, if it be such as would obliged them to admit
  the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
  explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
  others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the
  fabric of their lives.      --Tolstoy