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 question of safety vs. convenience, then maybe it's better to revert immediately to the default setting (the safer one). The question then would be, Does anyone want to re-vote the issue? If not, we could just leave it there. Mike Yosem Companys said: > 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 <m...@zelea.com> wrote: > > > 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 non-standard too, as Joseph suggests. > > > > Joseph said: > > > ... I wouldn't want to question that collective decision... I think > > > the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large > > > number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful. > > > > While well intentioned, the original decision seems ill-informed. > > > > -- > > Michael Allan > > > > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 > > http://zelea.com/ > > > > > > Matt Mackall said: > > > 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 > > > places. > > > > > > Let me relate a personal example from several years ago: > > > > > > A: <operational discussion on activist group list> > > > B: Right on! ps: how's <extremely embarassing private matter> going? > > > B: Oh SH*#&$#*T, I'm SOOOOO sorry, I didn't mean to reply-all!! I feel > > > horrible!! > > > > > > It's quite easy to imagine <extremely embarassing private matter> being > > > replaced by <career-ending aside> on most lists, but on this one in > > > particular it might be replaced by <potentially life-endangering datum>. > > > > > > Now compare this to the typical fall-out that happens without reply-to: > > > > > > A: <operational discussion on activist group list> > > > B: <public reply accidentally sent privately> > > > B: Oops, sent that privately, sorry for the duplicate. > > > > > > How many such minor inconveniences equal one job lost or life > > > endangered? In my opinion, no list should use reply-to-list. > > > > > > -- > > > Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. > > > > > > Joseph Lorenzo Hall said: > > > 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 made a year or so ago, and the list has grown a lot since > > > > then. > > > > > > Cool. That is exactly the data that I was looking for; I wouldn't want > > to question that collective decision. > > > > > > I think the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a > > large number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful. > > > > > > best, Joe -- 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
