[liberationtech] list reply-all

[Michael Allan]

Matt said:
> Reply-to-list poses a significant usability risk that can escalate
> into a security issue, so it's unfortunate that it's being used here
> of all places.

I agree.  Some more information on "Reply-To header munging":
http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html

It's non-standard too, as Joseph suggests.

Joseph said:
> ... I wouldn't want to question that collective decision...  I think
> the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large
> number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful.

While well intentioned, the original decision seems ill-informed.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Matt Mackall said:
> On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 19:08 -0400, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> > Has the possibility of reconfiguring libtech to not reply-all by
> > default been broached?
> 
> Reply-to-list poses a significant usability risk that can escalate into
> a security issue, so it's unfortunate that it's being used here of all
> places.
> 
> Let me relate a personal example from several years ago:
> 
> A: <operational discussion on activist group list>
> B: Right on! ps: how's <extremely embarassing private matter> going?
> B: Oh SH*#&$#*T, I'm SOOOOO sorry, I didn't mean to reply-all!! I feel
> horrible!!
> 
> It's quite easy to imagine <extremely embarassing private matter> being
> replaced by <career-ending aside> on most lists, but on this one in
> particular it might be replaced by <potentially life-endangering datum>.
> 
> Now compare this to the typical fall-out that happens without reply-to:
> 
> A: <operational discussion on activist group list>
> B: <public reply accidentally sent privately>
> B: Oops, sent that privately, sorry for the duplicate.
> 
> How many such minor inconveniences equal one job lost or life
> endangered? In my opinion, no list should use reply-to-list.
> 
> -- 
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.


Joseph Lorenzo Hall said:
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 19:32, Yosem Companys <companys at stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
> > We used to use individual replies rather than reply all, but the list
> > members took a vote to change the default to reply all.  If there's
> > enough interest, we could always bring it up for another vote, as the
> > decision was made a year or so ago, and the list has grown a lot since
> > then.
> 
> Cool. That is exactly the data that I was looking for; I wouldn't want to question that collective decision.
> 
> I think the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful.
> 
> best, Joe