🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul16.005647.10015@mits.mdata.fi> karttu@mits.mdata.fi (Antti Karttunen) writes:
>
>BTW. Obviously I wasn't thinking 100% when I posted that suggestion.
>Of course we don't need no any additional Original-Sender field in header,
>because that information is already in From: field. The problem is that
>when I reply with R command, and news software takes the mailing list
>address from the Reply-To: field into To: field, I have nowhere the
>original address of the sender, if he hasn't included it in his signature.

  Complain to the mailing list manager.  Complain to people who write
broken software which does this.  The "Reply-To:" is supposed to be
an optional header available to the author of the article.  The practice
of adding a "Reply-To:" pointing back to the list is abusive.  It abuses
the intentions of the "Reply-To:" header.  It abuses the readers who
wish to reply privately to the author.  It abuses the readers of the
mailing list who see many messages of no interest to anyone but the
original author.