Date   : Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:27:22 +0000
From   : jgh@... (Jonathan Graham Harston)
Subject: Mailing list headers (was: BBC Master 128 problem)

>Message-ID: <20070219214737.55139.qmail@...>
 
Greg Cook <debounce@...> wrote:
> I vote to keep the Reply-To headers as they are.  I have my reasons and
[...]
> Even so, conscientious posters with a compatible mailer can set the
> Reply-To address to any value they choose (which may be their own
> address deliberately after all.)
 
We aren't talking about /posters/ setting a reply-to address, but
the /server/. The /list/ sets the reply-to address that list
subscribers receive.
 
Somebody sending an email can set the reply-to in the email they
send. When that gets to a mailing list, that could be used if the
/server/ wanted to reply to them, but the server sends it own,
new, emails out to list subscribers. When a list subscriber
receives a list post from "Fred", they are /not/ receiving an
email from Fred, they are receiving an email from the list server.
 
I, too, maintain various enail lists and have seen the utter
confusion and disappearance of threads when the list does not set
reply-to to go back to the list. You get one post, and the thread
vanishes into a private reply back to the poster.
 
But the crux of the matter is that for a user to have a choice of
who/how to reply, the server must privide a choice. If the headers
say:
--  From: Fred Bloggs <fred@...>
--  Reply-To: Fred Bloggs <fred@...>
 
then it doesn't matter how sophisticated the user's email client
it. There is only one return address! And before somebody gives
the stock answer "type in the list address manually" - NO! Why the
hell am I using a computer if I have to do things MANUALLY?!?!?!?
The WHOLE POINT of computers is the REMOVAL of doing things
manually.
 
-- 
J.G.Harston - jgh@...                - mdfs.net/User/JGH
Jet Set Willy Resources - http://mdfs.net/Software/JSW