full-disclosure - Administrivia (very OT, but should be addressed)

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: lists2 at onryou.com (Cael Abal)
Subject: Administrivia (very OT, but should be addressed)

>>"Dan's proposal is intrinsically flawed. It incorrectly assumes that the
>>sender can reasonably anticipate the recipient's needs in replying to
>>the message, and that such needs can reasonably be lumped into either
>>"reply" or "followup". It doesn't solve the real problem, which is that
>>responders need to think about where their replies go. Mail-Followup-To
>>won't decrease the number of messages that go to the wrong place."
> 
> But you can at least tell people if you want or need a separate copy
> in addition to what gets sent to the list. People who don't want separate
> copies should be setting mail-followup-to. Even if not all mail clients
> support it some do.

Bruno, did you read the objections raised in that link I provided?  I
know how Mail-Followup-To works.  I also understand there are unresolved
problems with it.

Here's that link again:

http://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/pm-tips-body.html#replyto_header

This will be my last post on the subject, but please consider that MFT
is *not* a standard (and as far as I know hasn't shown up in an RFC
since the late '90s), supported by only a handful of MUAs...  And the
(default), polite course of action has historically been not to CC folks
in mailinglist posts.

Enjoy your weekend,

Cael