>I disagree.
 
Please reread the numerous debates held on this topic in the past. I will
not comment on anything that has already been said.
 
>ALSO, "Reply-To:" would not be necessary, because a simple REPLY command
>would then reply to the sender,
 
Which, in your example, points to an error-delivery mailbox.
 
>and REPLY ALL would reply to the list.
 
and to the  error-delivery mailbox, or, assuming there  was no "Sender:",
to the list and the individual who originated the message, who would then
get 2 copies.
 
>This would solve the annoying problem  of postings stating "reply to me"
>where the sender doesn't insert a "Reply-To:",
 
As you said  yourself, this annoying problem can be  solved by the person
typing "Reply-To: <his  userid>" rather than "please reply to  me as I am
not subscribed to any  of the lists I am sending  this message to", which
is much shorter and also more efficient.
 
>And since  everyone would  get an  identical copy  of each  posting, the
>DISTx code might  be much simpler, and  it might also be  much easier to
>save more network bandwidth.
 
Please elaborate on this. I'd be interested to know how this would reduce
the load, given that  the mail headers would then reach  an average of 30
lines  rather than  the usual  Date/From/Sender/To/Subject that  LISTSERV
presently  generates. And  oh, by  the way,  you don't  need LISTSERV  to
implement a  list like that. The  Crosswell mailer will do  it just fine,
and more efficiently.
 
  Eric