Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Smail 3.1 Mailing Lists -- Reply-To????
Message-ID: <20452339@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 8 Feb 91 20:32:13 GMT
References: <121644@uunet.UU.NET> <20452337@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <1991Feb8.194340.32390@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Lines: 55

In article <1991Feb8.194340.32390@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> Most reasonable MUAs will not generate a reply to the 'From: ' header if
>there is a 'Reply-To: ' present.  

Quite right -- just the intended effect

>                                   This means hand typing the address, probably
>juggling multiple windows to look it up.  In short, it is an invitation to
>mistyping and incorrect addresses.

Oh, I don't know about that.  Most 'reasonable' MUAs let you do stuff
like including the entire message being responded to, including the
header.  When you do that you get the old From: line, and you can steal
the address for your new To: field.  Some MUAs even let you edit the
original message in-place; you could then delete the Reply-To: line,
save, and then hit 'r' for those cases where privacy was important.

I agree that unsophisticated mail users will tend to reply to the list
rather than the original poster under my scheme.  That is exactly how I
want it.  My bet, and I think it's a good one, is that knowing when a
_truly_ private response is called for correlates well with knowing how
to tweak one's mailer to make it happen.

If I were to set up a mailing list for some purpose other than public
discussion, like NET-PEOPLE or FOR-SALE, then I'd set it to leave off
the Reply-To: header line.

Even within a standard discussion list, if someone sends me an article
(to list-request) and asks that it be posted with replies redirected
somewhere else, I can set it up.  (Haven't automated it entirely.)
I do that for special offers, association announcements and so forth,
where I really DON'T want "yes, sign me up" responses to go to the list.

> If you really must put the listname on 'Reply-To:' (and I obviously wish
>you wouldn't), can you also put the originator's address there.  Unlike the
>'From: ' header, the 'Reply-To: ' can have multiple addresses.  With
>
>    Reply-To: listname@my.site, originalguy@his.site (Original Posting User)
>
> then the MUA will generate both addresses, and someone who wishes to
>only respond to the originator can edit the headers as needed.

Yes but unfortunately this would have the almost universal effect of
making people get two copies of every response to their articles.  I
post an article about stereoscopes, then BOOM BOOM, here come all the
answering articles, BOOM BOOM, one two.  That's not cool.  I'd spend X%
of my moderator energy calming people down about it.  Or more likely,
neophytes would start posting followups twice because the first one
didn't "take" or something.

I guess it boils down to how one runs a list.  I take a fairly
aggressive, Digest-style approach, where I want to retain control over
what appears and how.  For the kinds of purposes I run lists to serve,
this works well.  There are other, more casual or private models where
you'd want the header to look different.