On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 05:48:20AM -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
Pardon me, but that's not true. GNU Mailman is a decent list server
and it ships with reply-to-sender. You must go out of your way to
munge the Reply-to header. They recommend against it:
Please let me clarify: I think it was the original collective decision
that was ill-informed, and not the decision to vote on the issue, or
to honour the result of that vote.
But it now appears that safety is a concern (as Matt points out),
which wasn't originally understood. Since it's a
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote:
But it now appears that safety is a concern (as Matt points out),
which wasn't originally understood. Since it's a question of safety
vs. convenience, then maybe it's better to revert immediately to the
default setting (the
I find myself agreeing. While emails that reply to all when the
intentioned recipient is a just a specific friend are tragic, the
default reply to behavior for most emails on this list(or at least
mine) is to the entire list. That's what a mailing list is for?
-Andrew
On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:52
The strain on server argument and the list server filtering argument seem silly
to me (I doubt any configuration other than allowing very large attachments
will substantially impact the server and Mailman does redundancy filtering
quite well if you allow it)... and I'm on lists where forwarding
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote:
Maxim Kammerer said:
... Any decent mailing list uses reply-to-list as a default. ...
Pardon me, but that's not true. GNU Mailman is a decent list server
and it ships with reply-to-sender.
I wrote “mailing list”, not
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:02 +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
Isn't that a valid point?
No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an
example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list,
where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually
deserved
Maybe I have a hard time understanding since I don't use email to discuss
anything that would be embarrassing, career ending, and most certainly not life
threatening. However, it would seem that even if someone /does/ talk about
those things using email -- they should be doing it with
If we're going to require people to use their brains, perhaps its
not too much to ask that individuals take responsibility for paying
attention to who they are speaking to.
This is not a personally configurable setting on the mailing list
software, and we're
Strange how so many are citing security norms for (say) encryption but not
the one that systems should always fail to the safest setting. (Which isn't
always the most functional.)
I actually prefer it the way it is. Yet I certainly appreciate the
alternative concern and would support the change
Can we just vote already? This is getting out of hand and a perfect example why
this list is increasingly useless with too many flame wars and not enough
substantive content...
On Mar 20, 2013, at 13:52, Gregory Foster gfos...@entersection.org wrote:
If we're going to require people to use
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 07:08:48PM -0400, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
Has the possibility of reconfiguring libtech to not reply-all by default been
broached? Maybe I'm the only one that trips over it so often. best, Joe
This is something that has been debated numerous, and I do mean *numerous*,
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.
Best,
Yosem
..on Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 07:24:39PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 07:08:48PM -0400, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
Has the possibility of reconfiguring libtech to not reply-all by default
been broached? Maybe I'm the only one that trips over it so often. best, Joe
This
On Mar 19, 2013, at 19:32, Yosem Companys compa...@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
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
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
Am I right to assume Mike and Matt are asking that the issue be put up for
a vote again so that the default is changed back from reply-to-all to
reply-to-poster?
If so, I will get that survey going.
Thanks,
Yosem
One of the moderators
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Michael Allan
Here is a very personal example, in which I learned a valuable general lesson
about talking shit:
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/2008-March/001175.html
which had a side effect of cementing one of my professional mantras: What would
David Wagner do? ::)
I can certainly take
19 matches
Mail list logo
