At 02:20 PM 12/13/96 EST, you wrote:
>Cathy is correct in her assesment.  Nothing is broken:
>the user's REPLY-TO: is propagated into the distributed
>mail when * REPLY-TO= list,RESPECT is defined.
>
>I find that definition "better" than list,IGNORE, otherwise
>the sender has NO control over where a subscriber's compliant mail client
>REPLY will be sent.
>
 
There are very few generic mail reader programs which have configurable REPLY-TO fields.
 
In NNTP readers, there is a post option or follow-up option which is separate from the reply function.
 
On high volume lists, it is sometime distressing to see personal trivial replies sent to the list.
 
I personally would rather see an option rather than respect for listserv to transfer the contents of the FROM: field to the REPLY-TO field. Those wishing to post to a list or reply to the list...would have to send to the list address using an alias in their personal software or manually enter the list address.
 
All replies using the reply mechanisms in mail reader software would direct reples to the originator....rather than the intermediary.
 
John Cottingham
[log in to unmask]