From help-octave-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu  Sat Mar  6 14:31:13 1999
Subject: Re: speeding up Octave development
From: lash at tellabs dot com
To: jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu (John W. Eaton)
Cc: lash at tellabs dot com, help-octave@bevo.che.wisc.edu
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 14:30:36 -0600 (CST)

> 
> On  5-Mar-1999, lash at tellabs dot com <lash@tellabs.com> wrote:
> 
> | I usually try to reply to the list and the person if I can answer
> | someone's question, but one thing that sometimes gets in the way is
> | that by default replies will go to the person, since the From: line
> | is the person that sent the mail, and there is no Reply-To: line.
> | Some of the other mailing lists that I am on set the Reply-To: line
> | to the list address.  
> | 
> | I don't know if others feel the same way, but I have been bitten
> | by this a few times.
> 
> I'd rather not add a Reply-To: header because I have seen embarrassing
> things happen when people thought they were just replying to the
> sender but they were actually replying to the list.  I'd rather avoid
> that.  Doesn't your mail reader have a `follow-up' feature as well as
> `reply'?
> 
> jwe
> 

Fair enough, and as someone else brought up, adding reply-to can lead to
mail loops for invalid addresses and such.  I don't think elm has a follow
up capability, but if I use the group reply command, it will respond to
the sender and all of the recipients, which would include the list.  I tend
to avoid group reply most of the time because it can lead to the same
sort of embarassing situations.  

If I contributed to the discussion more often, it would probably become
a habit of doing it the right way anyway.

Bill