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: <405B9665.9010002@onryou.com> From: lists2 at onryou.com (Cael Abal) Subject: Administrivia (very OT, but should be addressed) >>"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. Bruno, did you read the objections raised in that link I provided? I know how Mail-Followup-To works. I also understand there are unresolved problems with it. Here's that link again: http://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/pm-tips-body.html#replyto_header This will be my last post on the subject, but please consider that MFT is *not* a standard (and as far as I know hasn't shown up in an RFC since the late '90s), supported by only a handful of MUAs... And the (default), polite course of action has historically been not to CC folks in mailinglist posts. Enjoy your weekend, Cael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists