On Sat, 24 Jul 1993 13:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Steve Simmons said:
>Curiously, he had some decent arguements (which I don't recall in detail
>but mostly involved some of the broken mailers the list was going to)
 
This is of course putting the cart before the horse.  :-)
Modifying MLM-behaviour to account for incorrect design of software
doesn't give the author of the B.A.D. software incentive to make
repairs.  It also perpetuates the problem, till somewhere down the
line it creates a problem that might then be much harder to fix.
 
 
>IMHO, the most compelling arguements I can see are two:
>First, as Chip and others have pointed out, *on the whole* those who reply
>to lists expect the reply to go to the sender, not the entire list (the
>Least Surprise principle).
 
I truly wonder about this, and wouldn't mind seeing more hard facts,
like maybe an opinion-sampling of mailing list subscribers.
In fact, I can't think of a single person I mail with regularly who
has told me heesh sees reply-to-author as default (yes, I full well
realize I'm just one in a HUGE group, which is why I'm saying this,
and asking for more definitive info).
Also, *IF* what you say is truly so, then the definition of mailing
list (to promote discussion amongst the list members (or something
roughly like that)) might need to be revised.  Discussing stuff
off-list doesn't help much in bringing opinions/views/facts to all
subscribers of that list.
But I be wrong in thinking that "discussion list" and "mailing
list" are two synonyms, and welcome corrections.
 
>Most user mail agents have reply vs. group-reply commands, and the general
>expectation of most users is that reply is to the sender, not the re-sender.
 
I don't think that what kind of commands MUAs have should be of much
importance to the possibilities an MLM might be capable of offering.
More important would seem to be which facilities the subscribers
want an MLM to offer, irrespective of what current MUAs might offer.
Of course afterwards, MUA implementors would hopefully update their
program to offer MUA users the chance to use that MLM-facility.
 
>Also, the Least Damage principle says that a the error which affects
>only two people (replies go to original sender rather than whole list)
>is better than the error which affects the entire list.
 
This would seem to be a really valid point, yes.
 
>Second, having the list do it's own Reply-To: field is superceding special
>handling which the original sender may have done.  The sender may be
>struggling with badly administered local mailers which blow the return
>address.
 
This again is something the item's author should take up with the
relevant admin people.  I don't feel that other list subscribers
should by default be saddled with the consequences of such problems.
 
> Should a list override those directives?  IMHO, no.
 
IMHO that depends on the views of the subscribers to each list
separately.
 
 
>[[ An aside: For those who argue a list should be able to create and/or
>   override reply-to, I would argue that you have difficulties when
>   considering *which* re-sender should be authoritative.  The first
>   exploder?  The last?  I would argue that there is *no* correct answer.
 
Rather than go for a single authoritive answer - which I agree
doesn't seem to exist - why not leave it up to each list separately?
I'd find it very hard to accept ANY single consistent behaviour for
ALL mailing lists in existance.
 
I can think of at least four-five ways how to define setting of the
"Reply-To:" header, including enforcement of its ABSENCE for list
X, regardless of whether a poster includes one or not.
 
>   This being the case, the best we can do is remind developers of user mail
>   agents they have some responsibility to show the user who the response
>   is going to, and users have responsibility for that response.  If the
>   user ignores clearly offered information, then it's his own problem. ]]
 
Fully agreed.  And for the same reasons, it would seem to me that
it's the responsibility of MLM authors/maintainers and list-owners/
maintainers to show the user clearly the relationship between the
item in question and the mailing list it pertains to.  (I had to get
in a mention of the original subject somehow, didn't I?  ;-) )
 
 
Regards.
$$\