It's hardly surprising that your customers who have already become
accustomed to the way your product behaves are annoyed when you
change it. LISTSERV and ListProc users who were used to Reply-To
being set by those servers also tended to think that having lists
set Reply-To was "the right thing".
None of this changes the fact that having lists set Reply-To is less
functional and does harm to the message.
That is a commonly expressed view, but I think it is wrong.
You are simply incorrect. (I've already explained why, so I won't
repeat it)
I much prefer those lists which set Reply-To (I have been on lists
where
the members have voted to have it set so), even though I have to
remember
which list is which in order to press the right Reply button.
You are entitled to your preferences. Note that having replies go only
to the list is a separate issue from whether it's appropriate for lists
to set Reply-To.
It will be even better, of course, when we have a MFT field available
as
well, so that Reply-To is still available for direct contact with the
author.
You've just aptly demonstrated one of the biggest potential problems
with MFT - that lists will misuse it just as they've misused Reply-To.
All it means is that users
often choose the behavior they have adapted to in their isolated
communities, rather than the behavior that works best overall.
But at the moment we have the worst of both worlds. Some communities do
one thing, some do the other, and others have flame wars about whether
it
is ruder to do one thing or to do the other.
That's always the case when you have multiple communities with
different conventions intersecting. The question is, do you want to
resolve the conflict in favor of the more functional outcome, or the
less functional outcome? Or do you want to perpetuate the conflict?
Keith