full-disclosure - meta-question about the list

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: chromazine at sbcglobal.net (Steve Kudlak)
Subject: meta-question about the list

Well, Ok this behaves as expected. Hitting "Reply All" does reply
to everyone in the to and cc lists. To me this is reasonable and
sensible, which is all well and good.

Of course this is because I have been thinking as a person who
just uses things...but now that I have been drifting back into admining
things I am getting interested in having all these things.

I think "mung with care" might be a good way to go. Of course this
can too lead to trouble. But overall it would be nice that things work
the way they are advetized. Reply should reply to the sender, in this
case the mailing list involved. Reply All should reply to everyone in
the to and cc fields.

I mean I have to teach this stuff to people and it is really irksome if it
seems all contradictory, or if  I have to say  "this works some of the time"
to too many people. In the same way I get really rattled when people
turn Linux into a religion and fail to point out the common sense approach
it takes to things and that it is an alternative to expensive products. 
Now if
it was just easy to make sure that normals could hookup their DSL or
Cable Modem that would real good...but I do digress.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve

Daniel Veditz wrote:

>Maarten wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I noticed that this list (-software) unlike many others does not add a 
>>"Reply-To: field with the list address there.  This makes replying a wee bit 
>>more error-prone since a lot of MUA's will happily reply to the poster 
>>instead of the list unless you manually cut&paste the right addresses.
>>
>>Is there a special reason this header isn't used ?
>>    
>>
>
>"-software"? I received this on full-disclosure. Which list would be put in
>the Reply-to header?
>
>See the articles
>
>"Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful"
>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
>"Reply-To Munging Considered Useful"
>http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml
>
>-Dan Veditz
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040815/d8a3e26f/attachment.html