On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 01:51:32AM -0600, Chad C. Walstrom wrote: > Alternatively, if the discussion is to be taken off list, the "Reply-To" > field is a better seed for such redirection. Maybe you'd like to move a > discussion from one list to another. Use the "Reply-To" field to > redirect further posts to the thread. Since clients tend to obey > "Reply-To" fields, you can reasonably assume that everyone will be able > to make the cross-over. Sounds like a mixed bag to me. Thread participants not subscribed to the new list could be lost from the thread, thereby creating confusion, and temptation for writers to add them to the "Cc:" field. Not a terribly elegant solution, IMHO. Instead of attempting to hijack the thread by setting "Reply-To", why not simply establish a protocol for putting the thread on the other list, if it really belongs there? <:-)> On the other hand, maybe it would make sense to "enhance" the functionality of "Reply-To" by adding scriptability and regular expressions ... (sort of like a mini-procmail) </:-)> > "Reply-To" is simply far too useful to go munging it with a listserver. I disagree with this conclusion. My inclination is to follow the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle where possible and optimize for the most common scenario (e.g. sending mail back to the list). I'm also inclined to think that not just anyone should be armed with the capability to easily manipulate the default behavior of list traffic -- that authority should be reserved for list admins or other types of moderators. Joel