PS - A fellow list administrator kindly points out that I'm wrong
about the actual configuration variables. And in that connection, I
also misrepresented what Karl was saying. (Sorry for the added noise
and confusion.) The actual config variables are:
(1) Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message
be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an
explict Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not.
- No
- Yes
(2) Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is
*strongly* recommended for most mailing lists.
- Poster
- This list
- Explicit address (3) _________
The meaning of these three variables is defined here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html
The default and recommended settings of (1 No) and (2 Poster) leave
the sender's Reply-to headers unaltered.
My argument still stands, ofc. The issue decided by this vote is not
the issue that was raised by Joseph and Matt. That issue, and that
question, have yet to be discussed and voted:
> > ... It is whether to modify the sender's email headers against the
> > standard practice of mailing lists, and against the advice of
> > technical experts, and thus to infringe on the safety of the
> > sender and other subscribers.
Mike
Michael Allan said:
>
> Andrés said:
> > The beauty of democracy! :-)
>
> Well, the decision is binding and must be respected. But the issue
> decided here is not the issue that was raised by Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> and defined by Matt Mackall. We can see this from the comments that
> accompany the public votes. One or two voters (such as Karl Fogel)
> have recognized that the question erroneously implies a reply-to-
> -poster setting in the configuration of the mailing list. This isn't
> just a technical error, it's a crucial point. The false distinction
> between replying to poster and replying to list has clearly confused
> many people into thinking that the issue boils down to a question of
> whether to retain the function of a mailing list at all. The issue
> raised by Joseph and Matt is quite different. It is whether to modify
> the sender's email headers against the standard practice of mailing
> lists, and against the advice of technical experts, and thus to
> infringe on the safety of the sender and other subscribers.
>
> Suppose we frame this issue as a question at some point, discuss it in
> a reasonable manner (subscribers here are intelligent and thoughtful),
> and then vote on it. It would be the first-ever vote on the issue.
> And if that's true, then isn't it *this* freedom to raise issues, to
> discuss them reasonably, and thus to inform voted decisions (and not
> the binding power of decisions) that's the real beauty of democracy?
>
> And what about the larger democracies in which many of us are
> fortunate enough to be citizens? Are we making ill-informed decisions
> for lack of reasoned discussion there, too? I'm thinking we ourselves
> might be in need of some "liberation technology".
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
>
>
> Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes said:
> > The beauty of democracy! :-)
> > On Mar 27, 2013 10:20 PM, "Yosem Companys" <compa...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Liberationtech list subscribers,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your vote on the following question, "Do you want replies to
> > > Liberationtech list messages directed to reply-to-all or reply-to-poster?"
> > > Here is the final vote tally:
> > >
> > > - Reply to All: 73%
> > > - Reply to Poster: 27%
> > >
> > > For perspective, the vote tally last time on August 20, 2012, was
> > > strikingly similar:
> > >
> > > - List: 69%
> > > - Sender: 31%
> > >
> > > As a result, the list default option will stay at "reply to all."
> > >
> > > Thanks again,
> > >
> > > Yosem
> > > One of your moderators
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
