[rescue] wrong list?

[George Adkins]

> FYI the working kink to "reply-to Munging Considered Harmful" is:
>
> 	http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> I think Mail-{reply,followup}-To: can only be a viable solution if MLM
> implementers and managers can agree to leave them alone!  :-)
>

I read this page, and I must say, it took a bit of digesting.

In consideration, I find it arrogant, whining and generally offensive.
The author is obviously under the impression that mailing lists are publicly 
owned and operated, and is probably a Liberal... (I apologize for the use of 
that bit of profanity on your list Bill)
Several of the most glowing examples are included with commentary...

> Freedom of Choice
> Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, ``All responses
> should go directly to the list anyway.'' This is arrogant. You should allow
> me to decide exactly how I wish to respond to a message. If I feel a public
> response is justified, I'll hit the ``g'' key and tell Elm to do a
> group-reply. If I believe a private response is more appropriate, I'll use
> ``r'' to send one. Please allow me the freedom to decide how to handle
> a message.

This is preposterous.  It is the List Administrator's list, and all traffic 
sent by the list are being sent by the Administrator's machine.  The List 
administrator's messages from his machine should have the reply-to header set 
to whatever he/she wants them to.  If the individual sending the message 
cannot control the destination of their own e-mail, I have NO sympathy.

The same outrage applies to the following sections.  Not only do these 
paragraphs imply that a list Administrator has some kind of responsibility to 
coddle the Darwinistically challenged.  What, is the user Blind? can they not 
look at the recipients of the message before they type ". <CR>"?  Does this 
mean that somehow, someone who sends damaging, embarassing and/or sensitive 
information as a reply to MAILING LIST TRAFFIC deserves pity?  Hello! Mailing 
list traffic comes from mailing lists!  As in large groups of people!

> Principle of Least Surprise
> When I hit the ``r'' key in Elm, it sends a response to the author of a
> message. When you munge the Reply-To header you change this
> action so that it does something entirely different from what I expect.
> This creates specialized behavior for your mailing list, which increases
> the potential for surprise. <snip> 
> Private messages frequently are broadcast across lists that do Reply-To
> munging. That's an empirical fact. It's what happens when you violate the
> principle of least surprise. 
> 
> Principle of Least Damage
> Consider the damage when things go awry. If you do not munge the Reply-To
> header and a list subscriber accidentally sends a response via private
> email instead of to the list, he or she has to follow up with a message
> that says, ``Ooops! I meant to send that to the list. Could you please
> forward a copy for me.'' That's a hassle, and it happens from time to time.
> What happens, however, when a person mistakenly broadcasts a private
> message to the entire list? If the message is a complaint about the
> personal hygiene of sender's boss, or the sex life of his or her roommate, 
<clip>

George