"Harm"? Really?
Nick On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Ben Finney <[email protected]> wrote: > Tennessee Leeuwenburg <[email protected]> writes: > > > Six of one, half a dozen of the other. > > It really isn't, though. Setting “Reply-To” to the mailing list is > significantly more harmful than leaving that field alone. > > * The failure mode of “don't do anything with Reply-To” is that > sometimes people send a message to an individual, that they *intended* > to go more public. > > * The failure mode of “set Reply-To to the mailing list” is that > sometimes people send a message publicly, that they *intended* to be > private to an individual. > > Which failure is easier to recover? > > The former is hardly any damage at all; recovery simply requires sending > the message again to the correct address. > > The latter is unrecoverable. Once a message has been sent more publicly > than intended, it cannot be un-sent. > > Setting “Reply-To” to the list is much more troublesome for those who > run afoul of it. > > > I've never found a 'best' setting, you just have to choose your > > preferred set of hassles. > > So it's not merely a matter of preference. One mode is clearly more > damaging than the other. > > > I'll change it if 70% of people agree and at least ten people express > > an opinion. That's because I value stability at 25% but I can't have > > half a person if only ten people vote :). > > Because the failure mode of “don't do anything with Reply-To” is > harmless and easily recovered, I vote for that. > > This shouldn't be decided by vote, though. It should be decided by doing > the least harm. > > -- > \ “Room service? Send up a larger room.” —Groucho Marx | > `\ | > _o__) | > Ben Finney > > _______________________________________________ > melbourne-pug mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug >
_______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
