X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to hobbyplat-bounces using -f
From: "Don Walker" <donw AT austin DOT rr DOT com>
To: <hobbyplat AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: reply-to
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:25:52 -0500
Message-ID: <JCEGJNKBMGIEPOMLDNAGMEDMEDAA.donw@austin.rr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <200204200242.g3K2gKJ32623@envy.delorie.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: hobbyplat AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: hobbyplat AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Personally, I don't really care.  I'm used to hitting "reply to all"
then culling out the addresses I don't want to hit.

DonW...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [mailto:dj AT delorie DOT com]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:42 PM
> To: hobbyplat AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: Re: reply-to
>
>
>
> > I'm certainly not the majority here, but I think history
> has shown this
> > to be the *worse* option.  We had a few cases on the Agenda
> lists where
> > a broken autoresponder would've flooded the list if
> Reply-To had been
> > set this way.  Either way, it's not a really big deal to me.  I'm on
> > lists that are configured both ways.
>
> I've processed about 150,000 messages through my list software, and
> haven't had that kind of problem yet.  Of course, I've got some pretty
> interesting filters on the lists too :-)
>
> > I'll bet DJ has read it, but in case anyone else out there hasn't...
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> Yup.  It says nothing about protecting list members from clueless
> individuals who don't understand either their mailers or the proper
> protocols for public vs private discussions.  It says nothing about
> email with tens of recipients because mail software keeps adding
> people to the list, unaware of how many copies they're actually
> getting.
>
> But this is a smaller, more focused list, so perhaps these kinds of
> problems own't exist (yet?).  Like I said, I'll let the majority
> decide.