Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] list reply-all

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Tue Mar 19 18:22:41 PDT 2013


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.





More information about the liberationtech mailing list