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.
> 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]
 To the tune of the middle part of "Return to Sender" by
Blackwell and Scott (sung by Elvis Presley).
 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).
 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