On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Joshua Kronengold wrote: #Mind, I've got some nifty custom e-lisp code that makes these "do the #right thing" even for known lists that use reply-tos (ie, r ignores #the reply-to header on such lists, while "f" obeys it, thus taking #advantage of this "feature"). And I do think that it would be a Good #Thing if there were a standard people could code email clients/lists #to that would allow for this behavior without munging standard #headers. #Agreed -- it's much worse to accidentally send a private message #instead of a public one than to accidentally send a public one instead #of a private one. Unless that accidentally-"published" message has personal, confidential, or embarrassing contents. (You can tell I'm saying this from my devotion to truth rather than from partisan purpose because I favor making "reply-to-all" the default on discussion lists, including this one.) #But what are 'yall using the "reply" (rather than "reply to all") #thing on -any- list? "reply to all" does the right thing on both this #kind of list and on "reply-to" lists. Well, for some of us it's not equally easy. Pine has R for reply, and then it asks you "reply to all?" Or maybe it first asks you "include original message?" and then "reply to all?" If you're in a hurry... #Certainly not. Instead, the bad behavior of other lists has caused me #to spend some time learning lisp code and having to code around them #to make them Do the Right Thing. Ah, then the nifty facilitating workaround you mention above is definitely Not Available to some of us. Most of us? -- Mark A. Mandel (Hi, Joshua!)