I find the arguments in:
<http://www.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html>
very technically compelling. I'd love to know of any way to make it
politically compelling...
I also find Keith's comment that users don't have the information
necessary to set a followup-to email header correctly, and won't want to
enter one manually compelling; although I disagree that reply-to offers
sufficient functionality.
I think the current situation is broken as I hate having to manually edit
people out of headers all the time and worry that some of the people I'm
removing might not be on the list.
Now what information does the person who sends to a list have which is
useful to know?
I think there are three useful preferences the sender can communicate:
(1) Keep my personal address in all group replies.
(2) I read the list; but like to get a bcc of group replies to messages I
post.
(3) I read the list; so don't use my personal address in replies.
What about a new header which simply communicates this information?
Group-Reply-Pref: include-me
Group-Reply-Pref: bcc-me
Group-Reply-Pref: exclude-me
Defaults to "include-me" if not present since that's current practice and
we don't want to surprise users with a behavior change. If this got
deployed I know a bunch of people who would love to use it.
- Chris