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]

Message-ID: <20040319210458.GA869@wolff.to>
From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III)
Subject: Administrivia (very OT, but should be addressed)

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:41:46 -0500,
  Cael Abal <lists2@...you.com> wrote:
> 
> "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.