Bruce Lilly <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Now it might be ever so slightly more work to send to an author who has
explicitly set Reply-To to point elsewhere -- presumably because he
doesn't want personal responses -- than if Reply-To isn't set; but why
*shouldn't* that be the case given that authors preference for not
receiving personal responses?
Your presumption is frequently wrong. That's my point.
For example, in order to get you to stop sending me copies of mail to the
mailing list, you think I should add a Reply-To header pointing to the
list. However, by doing so, I am making it difficult for anyone to send a
private reply to me should they have something they don't feel is
appropriate for the list. I have no desire to do this, and I do *not*
want to indicate a preference for no personal responses. I want to
indicate a preference that if the message is sent to the mailing list, I
not recieve an extra *copy*.
There is no way of representing those semantics with Reply-To in the way
that you describe, and I have no desire to force people to cut and paste
my address from somewhere else to send me personal mail where appropriate.
--
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>