On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 07:08:45AM +0100, Rene Kita wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 08:59:18PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 09:05:19AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > [...] > > > Adding “Reply-To: $address_of_the_list” is a more reliable way of doing > > > it. Most mailing-list software I know do it by default, and I have > > > chosen to do it myself for those that do not.
> > One thing is that doing this does make it more difficult for someone to > > reply to you off-list should they want / need to. > I wonder if the argument that modern MUAs make it easy to choose between > 'reply' and 'group reply'/'reply all' still holds. That's always been a thing. But the issues is that MUAs *must* (in my understanding) use the Reply-To header over the From header when replying if Reply-To is set. So, if the Reply-To is munged to the list address as Nicolas posted, it _breaks_ that functionality of being able to either group reply or reply to the original sender (of course mutt has an answer for this too, with the $ignore_list_reply_to setting, but most people don't have that option), since in either case, it will go to the list. It's both too easy to reply to the list when you mean to reply privately, and too easy to reply to both the poster and the list... so either way, it's about which is the lesser evil. w
