Chip Rosenthal writes:
> My solution is to munge headers to ensure the list name appears in
> the To: address. This allows people with mailers that support both
> reply and group-reply functions to work corectly. Messing with Reply-To
> headers is a mistake. I learned that the hard way. It's a simple
> and naive answer to the problem. I fell for it, and many others have
> too. It, however, is a cure worse than the problem.
Did you mean the From: address? (I ask because changing the To: address
doesn't cause reply-to-sender-only traffic to go to the list, and I'm
guessing that this is what you mean by "reply" as opposed to "group-reply".)
On many lists (like ietf), I don't read everybody's messages; I scan the
list of senders and subjects and decide which topics are worth my concern.
Changing the From address would prevent this.
> Messing with Reply-to headers is a mistake.
Just curious...what were the problems? While I generally prefer that
list expanders do minimal munging of message headers, it seems like the
"add a reply-to header if the sender didn't supply one" behavior would
work as well as anything else I've seen.