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]

Message-ID: <NMRC.666.6.66.0207170959310.7895-100000@www.nmrc.org>
From: hellnbak at nmrc.org (hellNbak)
Subject: default list reply-to: address

OMFG - 17 characters in the subject line wastes bandwidth?  Get a grip.
Your message is more of a waste of bandwidth than the extra characters in
the subject line.......

As far as the reply to goes, who cares?  How hard is it to change the
email address you are sending to?  There are much bigger things to worry
about than this stuff....

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, martin f krafft wrote:

> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:56:41 +0200
> From: martin f krafft <madduck@...duck.net>
> Reply-To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] 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.
>
>

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"I don't intend to offend, I offend with my intent"

hellNbak@...c.org
http://www.nmrc.org/~hellnbak

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-