Return to sender, return to list;
    Get it right, my life's bliss.
    We have discussions, 'bout T-E-I,
    But now we need to
    Determine to whom to reply.[1]

> I repeat my contention that it is suboptimal ... to have the
> default reply go back to the individual.
Hmmm... I must have missed when you mentioned this before, but now
that I've read it, I think it is worth finding out what subscribers
to the list would prefer. I have no objection to changing the setting
to "List,Respect"[2,3] if that's what subscribers want.

Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on the subject? Would you
prefer "sender" or "list" as the default reply-to (when none is
specified), or you don't care?

*   If you have interesting thoughts on the topic, please post to the
    list (you will have to override my reply-to :-)
*   If you'd like to register a vote for "sender" or "list", please
    write to me directly (just replying should do).
*   If you don't care, don't bother sending anything.


-- Syd Bauman, TEI-L list moderator
   Brown University Women Writers Project
   [log in to unmask]

Notes
-----
[1] To the tune of the middle part of "Return to Sender" by
    Blackwell and Scott (sung by Elvis Presley).
[2] The "Reply-To" LISTSERV distribution setting for TEI-L is
    currently "Sender,Respect" (i.e., if a "Reply-To" field is
    present in an original posting, it is left alone; if none is
    present, one is added with the sender's e-mail address).
[3] I presume the logic for doing this was that although errors
    might be more common, they are not that troubling. The error we
    see is mail sent to an individual when the whole list was the
    intended recipient. If the setting were changed so that the
    default reply went to the whole list there might be fewer errors,
    but they would be annoying to many more people, and potentially
    embarrassing to the sender. The error in this case would be mail
    sent to the whole list, when an individual was the intended
    recipient.