On Thursday 24 February 2005 10:01 am, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:08:21 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > No, it's not. You can *always* send a message again if it was > > supposed to go to the list. You *can't* retract a message if it was > > not supposed to go to the list. > > If you are going to send potentially offensive, libellous or > embarrassing emails, you should check carefully where you are sending > them, instead of relying on a setting on a remote server that can be > changed, without notice, at the admin's whim.
-1 Offtopic. :) My statement does not concern offensive, libellous, or embarrassing emails at all. :P My statement concerns the fictional "loss of information" associated with not sending to the list. It also concerns to actuall "waste of bandwidth" associated with sending to a list unintentionally. Of course, in this day and age, I don't think the bandwidth is much to be concerned about, unless the mailing list software is "stupid" enough to send out a message consisting of "My ISO I made with Catalyst doesn't work." plus said ISO attached without some sort of administrative approval. > Making the default action to be a reply to the list makes sense for a > list such as this one. For other lists, that may not be the case. This > is not a black and white issue, the best approach depends on the > circumstances. I disagree. It's a very clear issue. Altering an existing Reply-To is wrong. :P I'm only half serious here, don't take this as incendiary as it sounds. :) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy -- [email protected] mailing list
