Re: [OT] reply-to (was: AC_FOREACH public?)

[Keith MARSHALL]

Allan Clark wrote, quoting me:
>> But "Reply-to-All" is *not* the most appropriate solution -- it's what
>> I used  here, so *you* can have *two* copies of this message.
> 
> great.  I've got two eyes.  These duplicates are statistical noise in 
> the world of spam...

And I'm sure they are extremely popular with users on dial up connections
who are paying for connection time by the minute ;-)

> I don't see the problem.  ...and I still have choice to "reply" or
> "reply-all".

Great.  You still have that choice, even if the "Reply-to" header points
back to the list:

.  Reply to the address in the "Reply-to" header, for a list reply;
.  Reply to the address in the "From" header, for a private response;
.  Reply-to-All, to spam the world...

Regards,
Keith.