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

Yosem Companys companys at stanford.edu
Tue Mar 19 20:41:48 PDT 2013


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 <mike at 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 <companys at 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 companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130319/cc382d51/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list