On Thursday 23 May 2019 at 20:55:38, Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting Antony Stone (Antony.Stone@???):
> > PS: Please do not set "Reply-to" on list emails.
>
> Actually, _that_ use of the header was harmless (albeit, um, pointless).
> Josef had:
>
> To: Josef Grosch <jgrosch@???>
> Subject: Devuan AMI
> Reply-To: Josef Grosch <jgrosch@???>

> Josef was implicitly saying, 'Instead of sending me direct mail at my
> jgrosch@??? posting address, kindly instead use my alternate
> mailbox, jgrosch@???.'

I have no problem with that.

The unfortunate side-effect is that anyone receiving this list email and using
a simple "reply" ends up not replying to the list, which I consider to be very
bad manners.

> To illustrate the legitmate use-case, consider my recent situation when
> I knew I would be about a small ship for a while, hence having irregular
> if any Internet access. In that case, I might wish to signal in
> outgoing mail an alternate direct-reply address where I might use
> webmail.

This is all very well from a personal point of view, but such actions deprive
all other list subscribers (and the archives) from the potential benefit of the
reply (and any further discussions which might take place), therefore I
consider the onus to be on the person submitting the question to a list to
ensure that they can receive the reply from the list, rather than expecting
(or indeed trying to entice) the responder to reply to them personally and
only personally.

If the Reply-To supported "reply to me personally and also to the list" then I
wouldn't mind in the slightest, but if someone sends a question to the list
and essentially asks that the replies be *only* them personally, then I simply
consider that to be poor list behaviour.


Antony.

--
I want to build a machine that will be proud of me.

- Danny Hillis, creator of The Connection Machine

                                                   Please reply to the list;
                                                         please *don't* CC me.