(Heavy snipping by TKY.) First, a suggestion. When you intentionally send a private reply, please try to say so, so the recipient doesn't have to query you to check if you meant it to be private rather than public. [re: List headers should have the list address set as reply-to] Lydia Nickerson <lydy at demesne.com> wrote of DDB: >> > > Actually, what's going on is that you have certain immovable opinions >> > > based on those observable, measurable facts, not quite the same thing. David Dyer-Bennet replied: >> >You do understand that that's a top-level nasty accusation in my >> >world, right? Notice that, even in responding to the poke here in the >> >list, I didn't actually claim that the evidence was overwhelming and >> >only an idiot could disagree. David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> clarified: > It's the word "immovable" that I'm taking issue with. Well, it won't necessarily convince anyone, but let's have a little poll: 1. Have you accidentally sent a private reply instead of posting to the list? 1'. Have you accidentally posted to the list instead of sending a private reply? 2. Have you received an accidental private reply that was meant to go to the list? 3. When you get a message that was sent to you instead of the list, do you feel obliged to query the sender to ask him or her if it was meant to private instead of to the list? 4. Has the Reply-To behavior of this list caused you confusion when posting to other mailing lists, perhaps even causing you to accidentally send a private e-mail instead of posting or vice versa? 5. How do you feel about the Reply-To behavior of this list? Do you + love it + like it + don't much care + dislike it + hate it + hate it, Hate It, HATE IT! I'll post my answers in a follow-up. - tky