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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <405B1216.25654.BE9A8AF@localhost> From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald) Subject: Administrivia (was: RE: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? ) madsaxon <madsaxon@...ecway.com> wrote? > >Also, when sending messages to multiple lists (say F-D and Bugtraq), it > >seems you may slightly reduce the multiple message spew that often > >results on F-D because of the above by putting all the addresses in the > >To: header, rather than one in the To: and the other(s) in CC:. > > Why is that, do you think? Because, from a rather cursory look at several such multiple mails, _some_ of those braindead "I'll forward it to every address I can find in the message headers even though it did not originate on-site" re- posters only seem to do this with messages that have CC: headers. Regards, Nick FitzGerald
Powered by blists - more mailing lists