In a message dated Fri, 23 Aug 2002 8:07:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > 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. Unfortunately, some of us have email accounts that don't allow mail clients :( --KG