I don't have an opinion on the reply-to issue, but I'm definately in favor of subject-line tags. If "[Dragaera]" is too long of a tag, how about something shorter like "JHEREG", "BRUST", "[Dra]" or "VT" (for Vlad Taltos)? The tag doesn't have to be long to effectively do its job. > Scott, > > Alas, one of the great undead questions of mailing lists. I'm on *your* > side, 'cause otherwise you have to know everyone by name. > > Others say, well, just sort Dragaera into a file and it's all in one > place. Listname tag takes up space in header. etc. > > We do replies wrong, too . . . they go to sender, not to the list. > > Mia > > Scott Schultz wrote: > > >To the list admins; > > > >Sorry for not addressing you by name, but after looking at my welcome > >message and the drageara.info home page, I still wasn't able to figure out > >who actually runs the list. > > > >I'm wondering if the list software would support prefixing the subject lines > >of list email with an ID tag. Something like this: > > > >Subject: [DRAGAERA] If Vlad fought Batman, who would win? > > > >There are two benefits to this. The first is that it easily identifies any > >list email messages mixed in with non-list messages by simply sorting by > >subject. The other is that it allows one to create an anti-spam rule that > >doesn't rely on knowing the email address of the sender. This is especially > >important because the list defaults to "reply to sender" instead of "reply > >to mailing list". It's not unusual at all for me to find a Dragaera list > >reply in my in-box or my spam-box that was sent to me privately > >(intentionally or not). If those messages had a list tag in the subject then > >I could identify them and create a rule to file them correctly instead of > >missing them because Norton decided they were spam. > > > >I don't see a down side to this (though that may be due to having subscribed > >to other lists that did this and becoming accustomed to it). If it's within > >the capacity of the list software, I'd very much like to see it happen. > > > >Thanks! > > > >Scott Schultz > > > > > > > > > > > >