Every list I have ever been on has had the argument about whether it
should by default have "reply to list" or "reply to sender", sometimes
repeatedly. Some people think that reply to list is the obviously right
answer; others that "reply to sender" is. People from either camp will
come up with equally (un)convincing arguments as to why their personal
preference is clearly the only sensible one and the rest of us (who
don't care, but do like to know what's going on) will ask ourselves why
we are bothering to read this argument. I suggest that the right answer,
especially for well-established, long lasting, and generally beloved
lists like this one is .... leave things the way they are!
(and I would say that *whatever* setting this list actually has!)
Pablo Rodríguez wrote:
> Syd Bauman wrote:
>>> PS: I have sent this to the list owner before, but no reply.
>> To what address did you send it? I am the list owner, but did not see
>> any such mail. I'm wondering if my auto-sort filters might have
>> shoved it in with the hundreds of pieces of error mail that come in
>> each day.
> To [log in to unmask]
>>> Why do all messages sent form the list the reply-to field set to
>>> the sender instead of TEI-L. This causes unwanted private replies.
>>> Couldn't be the reply-to field set to TEI-L?
>> Back in Spring of 2000, this was briefly a hot topic. I asked the
>> list as a whole what was preferred, and got around a dozen
>> replies, IIRC. (The list probably only had under 300 subscribers back
>> then, so that would have been circa a 5% return rate. We have 658
>> direct subscribes as of this morning.) The replies were split almost
>> evenly between "sender" and "list", so I left it as is.
> I thougth it was a bug, but it seems to be a (nasty ;-)) feature.
>> If people would like, I'd be happy to take another vote. But I think
>> it is probably worth waiting until mid-January, as I bet a lot of
>> people or just starting to ignore list mail for the holidays.
> I vote for voting this ;-).