default Reply-To in mailinglist headers.

Sander van Dijk a.h.vandijk at
Mon Nov 6 13:47:52 UTC 2006

On 11/6/06, Robert Bauck Hamar <roberth at> wrote:
> *Sander van Dijk:
> >I just replied to a mail that was sent to crux at, realizing
> >too late that I was replying to the original sender, not to the list.
> But it would be worse if a mail you expected to be sent only to the
> original sender, ended up in the list?

That depends on the message. For me personally this isn't a big issue
(yes, I've had it happen on other mailinglists), because my reply's
are usually directly related to the the original mail (which is, or at
least should be, a 'public' topic, given that it was sent to a public
mailinglist). Also, I try to be polite when mailing most of the time
anyway, and when I don't, I usually find it justified enough to not
really care who reads it and who doesn't :-).
I agree that this might be different for other people though, and a
private message sent public is more likely to be harmful than a public
message sent private.

> Please read this: <URL:>

Hm, I find that most of these arguments aren't too strong (with the
notable exception of "Can't Find My Way Back Home", and to some extend
"Principle of Least Damage"); most seem related to the author's
preferences and expectations, which simply differ from mine.

Anyway, it was just a suggestion, I can live with both ways (setting
and not setting Reply-To), so if people feel strongly about this I
guess I'll just get used to changing the address manually or using
reply-all :-)

Greetings, Sander.

More information about the CRUX mailing list