The issue is how the MUA is not designed to expect an "email message"
to be
viewed as a "group conferencing" concept.
or maybe, the issue is that email freely mixes groups and individuals,
without distinguishing between the two, but there are some people who
want "groups" to work differently.
(question: other than not generating duplicates - which can be solved
by other means - what are other ways that group addresses should work
differently than individual addresses? )
The natural Reply for an email is to go back to the one person who
wrote it.
not clear. in paper correspondence a reply is often sent to other
recipients and cc's of the original message. basically, it is sent to
people who should get the reply.
However, in a list distribution, the "list address" is the new
responsible
"person" or "entity" for where a natural reply should go to.
also not clear, especially when some recipients of the original message
are lists and some are not, some of the recipients of the original
message are not included in any of the lists and others are, some
recipients of the original message deal with their list mail
differently than their personal mail, and there's no way for the
replier to know which of these is true for which recipients.
So the question is, if the MUA is currently designed to see the EMAIL
style
response logic to include the user of Reply-To:/From: for the natural
reply
address, should the backend list manager do more in this area to
assist in
the process?
I say yes, and this works 100% in this area.
you are using dubious premises, so it's hardly surprising if your
conclusion is wrong.
most of us have used lists that munged reply-to. most of us have seen
the problems associated with doing so. if you haven't seen those
problems yet, fine, feel free to read various missives on the subject
that are on the net. but don't expect us to ignore what our
experiences have taught us.
Keith