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: mail at blazde.co.uk (Roland Postle)
Subject: default list reply-to: address

> > 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

I think you must be drunk.

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

There is a very good argument there, but still I can't help thinking of
those HTML purists who rattle on about how blind people should be able to
view your webpage if it's done properly. No matter how much they lecture us,
the web won't change. And it won't be viewable properly by blind people
until someone develops better tools for converting the visual content.
Email's been abused for far longer than than HTML, and I can't help thinking
there aren't many people who still rely on the Reply-To field to get their
mail going to a different place than the From field. Perhaps that arachic
functionality should move aside for the convenience of mailing lists.

Also, I really hate receiving three mails everytime someone replies to one
of my posts on these non Reply-To munging lists. Presumably they just hit
the group reply button with no regard to the fact that my address ends up in
there twice (I have no idea why twice) as well as the list address which I'm
obviously subscribed to. Martin would have a fit at all that bandwidth
wastage.

Incidentally, does anyone have a link that tells me whether my email client
is handling these GnuPG messages correctly or not? I get 2 attachments, one
a text file of the message and the other the signature. I have to open the
attachment to read the messages, and then I have to copy-paste and manually
add '>'s if I want to reply to bits of it. Abuse of the email format we've
used successfuly for decades or a lame mail client (OE)?

This is all horribly off-topic. Sorry.

- Blazde