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: <20040320031350.GA4385@wolff.to>
From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III)
Subject: Administrivia (very OT, but should be addressed)

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 19:55:01 -0500,
  Cael Abal <lists2@...you.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

My argument was that it was better than not using it. It isn't a perfect
solution.
> 
> 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.

I disagree that not cc'ing senders is the default in general. I think it
depends on the kind of list, and the ones I use it is typically preferred
that you cc senders unless they indicate that they shouldn't be using
a mail-followup-to header.