On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 12:28 -0700, Matt Simerson wrote: > On Apr 11, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 4/11/2014 10:52 AM, Peter Blair wrote: > >> At 09 April, 2014 Al Iverson wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What about recipients' not being able to reply directly to the original > >>>> author? > >>> > >>> Personally I'd call that a feature if that were removed, I hate it > >>> when list messages are sent directly to a person instead of the list. > >> > >> +1 > > > > This line of thinking has me confused. > > > > It presumes that there should be no 'side' conversations. > > No, it presumes that side conversations are the exception, and that > list conversations *generally* take place on the list.
I'd be more inclined to concentrate on the failure modes of each, rather than purely their frequency. If one presses the normal "reply" button which is intended to send a message only to the author of the previous mail, and is tricked through technical means into replying in public, that failure mode can be *catastrophic*. What's been accidentally said in public cannot be withdrawn, and it can end careers. Setting the From: header to point back to the list is even *worse* than setting the Reply-To: header to point there. At least decent MUAs have options to ignore a Reply-To: when it looks like a mailing list, and/or pop up a warning to the user if they're trying to reply privately and a Reply-To: would break that¹. -- dwmw2 ¹ http://david.woodhou.se/evo-warn-reply-to-list.png
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
