An observation

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Chris writes:
> 
> 
>>What your doing, is wrong.
> 
> 
> No, it's standard SMTP. I worked with corporate messaging systems for
> years; I know whereof I speak. The "reply-to" setting is always set at
> the discretion of the originating MUA, although MTAs can be configured
> to override it (but MTAs do not do this by default).
> 
> The error is in the list configuration.  People who reply to the list
> must either change the address manually or do a "reply all," which
> creates a duplicate message, one to the list and one to the sender.
> This wastes bandwidth, and it wastes human labor as well because almost
> all replies are replies to the list, and thus require constant "reply
> all" or address changes.
> 
> The mailers handling the lists should be setting "reply-to" on all
> outgoing posts, or should change the sender to the address of the list.
> Some home-brewed list programs don't do this, however.
> 
> 
>>It's ignorant, and against the charter of the lists.
> 
> 
> I haven't been able to locate a charter for the lists, beyond a simple
> statement of the purpose of each list. Additionally, it's standard
> practice for mailing lists to route replies back to the list. I use the
> "reply-to" convention to compensate for lists that are misconfigured
> (they are a minority, but a significant minority).
> 

As Simon correctly points out - it's being directed to Questions. IF 
(and a big one for you to grasp) the Reply had Advocacy (being we're now 
discussing in here) there would not be an issue.

Can you hear me now??? Goood

-- 
Best regards,
Chris

The item you had your eye on the minute you walked in
will be taken by the person in front of you.