Hmm...this seems worthy of a response.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Dave Sherohman <dave at sherohman.org> wrote:
> Reply-To is specifically to be used to indicate where the message's
> author wants replies directed.  He then goes on to argue that, since the
> list management software is not the author of the message, it is a
> direct violation of the RFC for list software to set Reply-To.

This makes a certain amount of sense, however there are very few
instances that I have noted where someone sending e-mail to this list
would prefer to be replied to off list.  The general assumption that
can be made is that if someone sends a message to this list, (s)he
would like to be replied to on list, unless otherwise stated.
And even this exception could be overcome with a second e-mail address
to send a message to, if you would prefer that people specifically
reply off-list.  It also takes the guesswork out of the social aspect
of it.  (Does this person really WANT a public response to the
question of whether vi or emacs is better, or is (s)he just hoping to
get a hundred private responses so (s)he feels popular?)
In addition, I have had a conversation or two where I responded to
someone's question on list and they repeatedly responded to me
off-list, when the most helpful way to proceed would be to continue to
reply on list.  In hindsight, I believe that these people were not
trying to take advantage of my kindness, but honestly made repeated
mistakes because they expected the "reply" button to send a message to
where I wanted the message to be replied to.

> [4] Someone discovering that you're going out with friends
>    after lying to them about being sick

Karmic justice? Sure it's embarrassing, but if you lie enough you will
be found out, be it through the TCLUG mailing list or elsewhere.

> [6] See "Harriet Jacobs" (pseudonym), whose contacts and Google Reader
>    data were automatically exposed to her abusive ex-husband by the
>    Buzz launch; unfortunately, while you can find many references to
>    the incident, her original rant describing it is no longer public

I don't think this example really applies here.  Or maybe it applies
better to the argument for munging.
The Buzz launch did not reveal details due to people accidentally
e-mailing a list rather than a specific person.  Actually the problem
was that it revealed too many details to pretty much anyone who you
may have sent an e-mail to.  I have a lot of recommended contacts
merely because I hit "reply-all" to certain things that I could have
otherwise hit "reply" to and had the message sent to the list, and not
have another automatic entry in my address book.  I could also change
that setting, if I was overly concerned.

Note that anything I didn't quote and respond to, I don't disagree
with.  I think your argument was generally well thought out and well
presented.
I do still vote to change the reply-to to the list, though.
- Justin