On Apr 11, 2014, at 1:02 PM, David Woodhouse <[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 withdrawn, and it can end careers.
* Whether a poorly considered email is sent publicly or privately is
often of little consequence. Even if the recipient doesn't break confidence,
dozens of lawsuits, security software bugs, and NSA revelations have laid bare
that quaint notion of "private" email. A better assertion would say, "What's
been said in email can end careers." Whether it's sent to a private address, a
private list, or a public list only influences how long such a message is
likely to remain private.
* The status quo is having half the lists one way (reply to sender)
and the rest the other (reply to list). End users have no idea what's going to
happen unless they pay *careful* attention every single time they click the
Reply button. That by itself is a compelling argument for list messages to bear
the From address of the list.
* Setting reply-to-sender inconveniences *everyone* on a list nearly
every time they post, so that uninitiated list participants don't have to
experience the bittersweet taste of shoe leather. While I admire the concern,
in twenty years of running lists (*all* of which are reply-to-list), I just
don't see the merit in that argument. The number of red-faced moments on lists
is no greater than in face-to-face conversation.
We each each need to learn, and from time to time, re-learn that momma was
right when she told us that while speech is free, that doesn't mean it's free
of consequences. See Brenden Eich for a recent example. Lessons learned at a
cost tend to be lessons learned best.
Matt
> 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
_______________________________________________
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)
