full-disclosure - meta-question about the list

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: fulldisc at ultratux.org (Maarten)
Subject: meta-question about the list

On Sunday 15 August 2004 02:48, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:41:08 +0200, Maarten <fulldisc@...ratux.org> wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I noticed that this list (-software) unlike many others does not add a
> > "Reply-To: field with the list address there.
>
> Not quite correct--it doesn't *modify* the Reply-to: header or add it
> if it's not already present.

Granted.

> > This makes replying a wee bit
> > more error-prone since a lot of MUA's will happily reply to the poster
> > instead of the list unless you manually cut&paste the right addresses.
> >
> > Is there a special reason this header isn't used ?
>
> Well, some consider it to be harmful:
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Thanks, I just read it.  The thing is, I strongly disagree with it.  This 
document states that "Reply to all" is the SAME as reply to a list.  This is 
as false as can be.  Personally I HATE it when people cc: me mailinglist 
posts.  I read the list, I don't need to get separate messages in my inbox to 
get my attention.  CC'ing posts is even considered rude by some...

But if this is the way it is, okay.  No problem 

Maarten

> -Brendan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html