full-disclosure - default list reply-to: address

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: madduck at madduck.net (martin f krafft)
Subject: default list reply-to: address

also sprach Roland Postle <mail@...zde.co.uk> [2002.07.17.0344 +0200]:
> For what it's worth, I prefer it that way. With the exception of
> securityfocus' lists, all the mailing lists I'm on do it that way. It's what
> I'm used to, and, since the majority of replies go to the list not the
> individual who wrote the original post, it makes sense.

Which is why proper mail clients handle this appropriately. In Mutt,
I press 'r' to reply to the author, 'l' to reply to the list, and 'g'
to reply to both. Obviously this breaks when Reply-To is set...

Anyway, I give you this to read:
  http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

> The [Full-Disclosure] in the subject (that someone else objected to) I like
> as well, but I don't have such good reasons. I just like it.

It wastes bandwidth and doesn't add information that you couldn't add
on the client-side. I am opposed.

-- 
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@...duck
 
quantum mechanics: the dreams stuff is made of.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20020717/d74126da/attachment.bin