On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 11:39:59AM -0500, Joshua Kronengold wrote: > Actually, this is a pretty good example of why genralizing a language > is bad -- by adding a "reply to: list" field, lists tend to blur the > semantic distinction between "reply to the whole list" and "reply to > just the person who sent this", thus making it harder, in general, to I think the solution is to get smarter mailers. I squawked at first when I came on the list, but really it's no big deal. For lists like this I can define the address for mutt, and then use 'L' instead of 'r' to reply, so it'll mail the list address, not the author. For the more common IME lists, where Reply-To: is set, when I hit 'r' it asks if I want to mail to the list; if I say no, it'll mail to the author instead. 'group-reply', where you reply to everyone in the headers, is distinct from either of these. So mutt's introducted more distinctions, and therefore rules. -xx- Damien X-)