Mailing List Archive

> does the default reply to: HAVE to be the list address instead of the
> individual that sent it? I assume this was a choice config option during
> the list setup? I find my self wanting to reply only to the individual
> the wrote the email however when reply or reply to all is clicked the
> only address is full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com... can be a pain in the
> arse if in a hurry ... I think I have sent some cute comments out at
> least twice during a hasty reply.

For what it's worth, I prefer it that way. With the exception of
securityfocus' lists, all the mailing lists I'm on do it that way. It's what
I'm used to, and, since the majority of replies go to the list not the
individual who wrote the original post, it makes sense.

'Course, if you're the type that likes to flame everyone off-list without
stopping to consider who you're writing to it might not be so
convenient..... :p

The [Full-Disclosure] in the subject (that someone else objected to) I like
as well, but I don't have such good reasons. I just like it.

- Blazde

also sprach Roland Postle <mail@blazde.co.uk> [2002.07.17.0344 +0200]:
> For what it's worth, I prefer it that way. With the exception of
> securityfocus' lists, all the mailing lists I'm on do it that way. It's what
> I'm used to, and, since the majority of replies go to the list not the
> individual who wrote the original post, it makes sense.

Which is why proper mail clients handle this appropriately. In Mutt,
I press 'r' to reply to the author, 'l' to reply to the list, and 'g'
to reply to both. Obviously this breaks when Reply-To is set...

Anyway, I give you this to read:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

> The [Full-Disclosure] in the subject (that someone else objected to) I like
> as well, but I don't have such good reasons. I just like it.

It wastes bandwidth and doesn't add information that you couldn't add
on the client-side. I am opposed.

--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck

quantum mechanics: the dreams stuff is made of.

*grin* I think you hit the nail right on the head. I think about the
only mailing lists I use are the ones from securityfocus. I shal adapt I
suppose. =]
-KF

Roland Postle wrote:

>
>For what it's worth, I prefer it that way. With the exception of
>securityfocus' lists, all the mailing lists I'm on do it that way. It's what
>I'm used to, and, since the majority of replies go to the list not the
>individual who wrote the original post, it makes sense.
>
>

OMFG - 17 characters in the subject line wastes bandwidth? Get a grip.
Your message is more of a waste of bandwidth than the extra characters in
the subject line.......

As far as the reply to goes, who cares? How hard is it to change the
email address you are sending to? There are much bigger things to worry
about than this stuff....

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, martin f krafft wrote:

> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:56:41 +0200
> From: martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net>
> Reply-To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
> To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] default list reply-to: address
>
> also sprach Roland Postle <mail@blazde.co.uk> [2002.07.17.0344 +0200]:
> > For what it's worth, I prefer it that way. With the exception of
> > securityfocus' lists, all the mailing lists I'm on do it that way. It's what
> > I'm used to, and, since the majority of replies go to the list not the
> > individual who wrote the original post, it makes sense.
>
> Which is why proper mail clients handle this appropriately. In Mutt,
> I press 'r' to reply to the author, 'l' to reply to the list, and 'g'
> to reply to both. Obviously this breaks when Reply-To is set...
>
> Anyway, I give you this to read:
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> > The [Full-Disclosure] in the subject (that someone else objected to) I like
> > as well, but I don't have such good reasons. I just like it.
>
> It wastes bandwidth and doesn't add information that you couldn't add
> on the client-side. I am opposed.
>
>

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"I don't intend to offend, I offend with my intent"

hellNbak@nmrc.org
http://www.nmrc.org/~hellnbak

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

> > The [Full-Disclosure] in the subject (that someone else objected to) I
like
> > as well, but I don't have such good reasons. I just like it.
>
> It wastes bandwidth

I think you must be drunk.

> Anyway, I give you this to read:
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

There is a very good argument there, but still I can't help thinking of
those HTML purists who rattle on about how blind people should be able to
view your webpage if it's done properly. No matter how much they lecture us,
the web won't change. And it won't be viewable properly by blind people
until someone develops better tools for converting the visual content.
Email's been abused for far longer than than HTML, and I can't help thinking
there aren't many people who still rely on the Reply-To field to get their
mail going to a different place than the From field. Perhaps that arachic
functionality should move aside for the convenience of mailing lists.

Also, I really hate receiving three mails everytime someone replies to one
of my posts on these non Reply-To munging lists. Presumably they just hit
the group reply button with no regard to the fact that my address ends up in
there twice (I have no idea why twice) as well as the list address which I'm
obviously subscribed to. Martin would have a fit at all that bandwidth
wastage.

Incidentally, does anyone have a link that tells me whether my email client
is handling these GnuPG messages correctly or not? I get 2 attachments, one
a text file of the message and the other the signature. I have to open the
attachment to read the messages, and then I have to copy-paste and manually
add '>'s if I want to reply to bits of it. Abuse of the email format we've
used successfuly for decades or a lame mail client (OE)?

This is all horribly off-topic. Sorry.

- Blazde

On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 04:11:57PM +0100, Roland Postle wrote:
> There is a very good argument there, but still I can't help thinking of
> those HTML purists who rattle on about how blind people should be able to
> view your webpage if it's done properly. No matter how much they lecture us,
> the web won't change.

Hey, I wrote a tool to "remind" people to fix these things! It's called
limegreen, it's available at http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/limegreen/
and it validates web sites with W3C's validator and complains via e-mail if
the sites don't conform to the HTML specification.

// Ulf Harnhammar

You won't like mine then. I used my own DOC SPEC in protest against the
HTML purists who are far too snobby for my taste.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu)
Supervisor of Support Services
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ulf H{rnhammar [mailto:ulfh@Update.UU.SE]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:29 AM
> To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] default list reply-to: address
>
> Hey, I wrote a tool to "remind" people to fix these things!
> It's called limegreen, it's available at
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/limegreen/
> and it validates
> web sites with W3C's validator and complains via e-mail if
> the sites don't conform to the HTML specification.

On Wednesday, 2002-07-17 at 10:56:46 -0500, Schmehl, Paul L wrote:
> You won't like mine then. I used my own DOC SPEC in protest against the
> HTML purists who are far too snobby for my taste.

If I ever have a wheel to invemt, would you do it for me? :-P

Lupe Christoph
--
| lupe@lupe-christoph.de | http://www.lupe-christoph.de/ |
| I have challenged the entire ISO-9000 quality assurance team to a |
| Bat-Leth contest on the holodeck. They will not concern us again. |
| http://public.logica.com/~stepneys/joke/klingon.htm |