My 2 cents: I prefer the default be munging of the "Reply-To:" header also. It is more convenient for me. Replying to the sender only is a special case, and IMHO deserves to be handled that way. RFC: I don't know. >>> lxy at cloudnet.com 02/26/02 11:12AM >>> >>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: >> as for me, count me in on the side of munging the Reply-To: header. makes >> replying to the list much more convenient. I hit 'reply' to reply to the >> list; and if I feel like personally bothering the original poster with my >> drivel, as well as the list in general, I hit 'reply to all'. >> these are the common cases. >Hmm.. this goes against what I perceived to be the general mailing list >logic. To reply to the sender, hit reply. To reply to the list, reply to >all. This is the way I was taught to set up lists and they way I always >do it. I thought that was just kind of accepted as the method everyone >used. >Is there an RFC on this anywhere?