> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew C Greenberg <werdna at gate.net> writes:
>
>Andrew> Obviously, this was intended to be a private note.  My apologies.
>
>Another victim of an incorrectly set "reply-to:".  <sigh>
>
>How many of these do we need before this list gets set correctly?
>
>        http://www.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html

I'm not sure I can embrace this advice, even as the putative 
"victim."  By far, the last 1000 times I have hit "return," only once 
did I obtain the wrong result.  It was not by misdirection, but to 
the contrary, by my own absent-mindedness that message was missent: I 
wanted to send a message to Steven, and instead of pulling an e-mail 
from my in-box, I pulled it from the squeak folder.

I am quite certain that if it were the other way around, the vast 
majority of us would regularly send single messages for quite a long 
time, thinking that they were broadcasting to the "group."  I 
acknowledge there are reasonable arguments on both sides.  My view is 
that the convention of reply-munging, right or wrong, is so ingrained 
in the average list service user as to make any attempt to reverse it 
by fiat far more costly than any measurable benefit.  Any attempt to 
do it only on an ad hoc listserv-by-listserv basis would be far 
worse, perhaps making many listservs unusable in practice by 
requiring an affirmative study of every reply-to field before 
replying.

But this is probably not the forum for such a non-topical ideological 
dispute.  I just wanted to register in response to Randall's message 
that this "victim" blames his own feeble-mindedness, and not any list 
service conventions.