Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:27:46 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: List header munging [Possibly OT] [Was: Graphics in C]
In-Reply-To: <36466615.E35B7224@cartsys.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981109102331.18112K-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Nate Eldredge wrote:

> My mailer has a reply-to-all feature that sends
> the reply to the sender and all other recipients, so I used to be able
> to use this to reply to both the sender and the list.  But "Reply-To"
> overrides it, so now if I want to reply to the original sender I have to
> copy-and-paste manually, which is inconvenient and error-prone (the text
> is small and sometimes I miss a character).

If yours is a decent mailer, it will allow you to decide whether or not 
to use Reply-to instead of From.  This is what I use nowadays when I want 
to reply to both the poster and the news group.  (It does require that I 
look at the headers to spot a possible anti-spam, but I've got used to 
live with that, given the paranoia that surrounds this topic.)

> I realize that Usenet etiquette asks that posters read the fora to which
> they post, rather than requesting personal replies, but I view this as
> being somewhat harsh in cases.

Direct email replies are much faster, so people who are desperate to hear 
solutions for their problems will usually like the direct reply.