This question raised it's head on my list recently.
I pointed out the reasons
much as you have done.
A couple of people wrote supporting my view
and everyone else just went silent on the subject.

I'll put a few extra thoughts within your letter.

----------
> From: John Witherspoon <[log in to unmask]>
> To:
> Subject: Reply-To= Settings Debate
> Date: 05 May 1998 20:43
>

>
> Here's what one user says:
>
>        "Has anyone besides me noticed an awful lot of people accidently
> sending
> mail that was meant for an individual to the entire IAO list?  This is
because
> when someone hits reply in their mailer, instead of it doing the sensible
> thing, replying to the individual who sent the mail, the list is set up
to
> make
> the mailer send mail to everyone.  This is unintuitive and dangerous.
Every
> list I've ever seen that's been set up this way ends up having someone
> accidently sending something offensive or insulting to the entire group
> when it
> was just meant for a single person's eyes.

Well if someone is going to post offensive/insulting mails to
another member of the list,
then isn't it good that this side of their character is revealed to the
list?

If you are going to insult someone - you deserve what you get
if you can't be careful to whom you are sending the insult.


>         Some people may argue that this will make it harder to send mail
to
> the
> list, but I disagree.  Almost all modern mail programs have a "reply all"
> button that will send the mail to all the recipients and not just the
sender.
> "Reply" should mean "reply to sender" and "reply all" should mean "reply
to
> sender and everyone who received the message in question."  As it is now,
we
> only have the latter functionality.

Reply-all
only works if a message is addressed to more than one address.
I got this message within a MIME DIGEST and pressing Reply brought
John Witherspoon up in the "To" field.
Had I not been in DIGEST but getting individual messages then pressing
Reply
would have probably brought up the List address.

Here I have added the Listname to the recipient list
so John will get two copies
one sent individually
and one via the list.

The reply-to address on the first will be mine
Reply-all would probably bring up my address AND the list address.

The reply-to address on the second will be the list address
reply-all will probably only bring up the list address.

The complainant is very wrong to assume all mail programs work the same
(and arrogant if he thinks they should)

It is the senders responsibility to check where his message is being sent.
The listowner can make the default option he thinks is the most appropriate
for his list.

>
> 1) Reply-to= List stimulates list traffic and facilitates list-wide
> responses to others' postings (the list is sometimes traffic-starved for
> weeks until some hot topic comes up, at which point it goes nuts)

Here-here

> 2) Users are warned in welcome and probe-generated renewal template
> messages that all replies go back to the list by default unless a user

Trouble is people like the complainant fail to read such messages
because they think they know it all already

> 5) People should always double check where their mail is going; those who
> don't do so at their own peril

Absolutely

>
> 7) The most I would be willing to do would be insert an additional
warning
> into my already existing bottom banners (which generally deal with other
> subjects besides list operation).

might be expedient

Good luck
Gerald


Gerald England's Home page - http://www.nhi.clara.net/gehome.htm
New Hope International - http://www.nhi.clara.net/nhihome.htm
Christine's page - http://members.tripod.com/~lacemaker/index.htm
NHI Review - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1735
Cyberscribers - http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/7573