| I sort all my mailing list emails into mailing list specific folders based
| on "any header contains the list name".
So let me see ...
If you post to a list that we are both on and I have a private reply to send
to you ...
and either (a) I follow the common practice of adding "[off-list from
<listname>]" to the subject ...
or (b) the list tags its subjects, and I don't delete the tags from my
copies, so the subject of my private message to you is "Re: [listname]
then you'll sort it into your folder for the list and assume it was a public
post or a copy thereof ...
and not realizing it's a private message you might choose to post a public
reply on the list ...
and since you are against using reply-to-all because it builds up a chain of
unnecessary private copies in addition to the posted one, you'll use your
regular reply command ...
and when the return address comes up pointing to me instead of the list
you'll mutter something about reply-to-sender lists that don't clobber
Reply-To: and change it to point to the list ...
and you'll quote my privately mailed text to -- and share your comments on it
with -- the whole list membership.
That sounds like a very risky practice. Personally, I don't do "(a)" -- (I
put "[off-list from listname]" at the top of the body) but I've seen a lot of
people do it. Also, I hate subject tags and strip them out on the way to my
folders, so I'm not at risk of "(b)" either, but many people are. Even so,
sometimes the name of the list really has a purpose in appearing in the
subject of a private message. "Subject: Are you as sick of listname as I
am?" for example.
At least exclude the subject line when you search the headers for appearances
of the list's name.