Thank you.

> > I thought this wasn't a problem with the current release of LISTSERV.
>
> This really has nothing to do with LISTSERV or which version, only the
> settings you have set for it. LISTSERV is doing what it's told to do.

Yes, I figured that -- but what I guess I was thinking about was that
I remember, a few years ago, storms of "out of office" replies
responding to each other and choking lists.  I'm presuming there's a
convention to prevent that.  If my LISTSERV were configured to send
such replies to the list address rather than the individual, it seems
to me it would happen all the time.  I don't know what the convention
is, and I've not had to deal with it since I've been a list owner, so
I haven't had to learn.

> Where the auto-responder sends the reply is dependent on the
> Reply-To= setting in your header. It is also depend on how the
> auto-responder is setup, as far as which fields replies are
> directed. So there is no right or wrong here as far as your list.
> You set the Reply-To= the way you need it for your list and let the
> "cards fall where they may" for the auto-responders.

Okay, but what's preventing me from setting my list to distribute
them to all the subscribers, thus prompting the list to get flooded
with "out of office" replies?  (It's not my sophisticated
understanding of the differences between Reply-To: and Sender: and so
forth, I can assure you of that . . . )

                                  -- Russ
                                __|~_
Russell A. Hunt            __|~_)_ __)_|~_    Professor of English
St. Thomas University      )_ __)_|_)__ __)  PHONE: (506) 452-0424
Fredericton, New Brunswick   |  )____) |       FAX: (506) 450-9615
E3B 5G3   CANADA          ___|____|____|____/    [log in to unmask]
                          \                /
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.StThomasU.ca/~hunt/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~