Thanks Mr Buzz Kill with your well researched and logical arguments. Well my research indicates that I like reply-to-list better. <br><br>While your points are certainly valid I think that 99% of the time on a list like this one the default action would be reply-to-list and if someone does accidentally reply to the list when they didn't want to it would most likely be some side geekery too inane for public consumption. I could see how the "Lets talk about our cheating abusive husbands/wives/hamsters" list might not be that way.<br>
<br>But I'll change my vote to: Whatever<br><br>AND IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH ME YOU CAN COME TP MY HOUSE AT 1006 SUMMIT AVENUE!<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Dave Sherohman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@sherohman.org">dave@sherohman.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0600, Yaron wrote:<br>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:<br>
> > I also have root access to the mailing list server, so if I wanted to be<br>
> > autocratic about it I could just make the change unilaterally. However, I<br>
> > think that would be rather irresponsible.<br>
><br>
> Well, so far we've got quite a few people saying they'd like the change, a<br>
> couple of people saying they don't need the change, and zero people saying<br>
> they're against it.<br>
<br>
</div>I've been holding my tongue thus far, as I'm no longer local to the LUG,<br>
but, since you've said that there's nobody against it... I'm against<br>
it.<br>
<br>
The canonical list of arguments against lists setting Reply-To would be<br>
Chip Rosenthal's ""Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful"[1], but that's<br>
pretty ancient these days. Google's first hit on it is a copy dated<br>
2002, but Simon Hill's response, "Reply-To Munging Considered<br>
Useful"[2], dates to at least 2000, so it's clearly older than that.<br>
<br>
At some later point, Neale Pickett published ""Reply-To" Munging Still<br>
Considered Harmful. Really."[3], in which he points out that, per RFC2822,<br>
Reply-To is specifically to be used to indicate where the message's<br>
author wants replies directed. He then goes on to argue that, since the<br>
list management software is not the author of the message, it is a<br>
direct violation of the RFC for list software to set Reply-To. (It<br>
should use List-Post instead, as defined in RFC2369. Unfortunately,<br>
well over a decade later, clients which properly recognize List-Post<br>
headers remain thin on the ground.)<br>
<br>
<br>
Now that the historical archive has been presented, I'll finally get to<br>
my reason for opposing the use of Reply-To headers by mailing list:<br>
It's a matter of privacy and security.<br>
<br>
Put simply, if a message which is intended to be public is sent<br>
privately, it causes little to no harm. As already seen on this thread,<br>
it's easy for the recipient to include it in a public response, or the<br>
original sender can trivially re-send it to the correct address. The<br>
net result is a minor inconvenience for the sender (who has to send it<br>
twice) and possibly a minor annoyance for the private version's<br>
recipient (who will receive two copies unless their mail software is<br>
smart enough to filter out the duplicate).<br>
<br>
A message intended to be private which is unintentionally made public,<br>
on the other hand, can cause significant harm, ranging from simple<br>
embarassment[4] to professional problems[5] to actual physical<br>
danger[6]. Even when you consider that Reply-To munging will prevent<br>
more problems than it causes, the potential damage caused by a single<br>
exposure of private information is so much greater than the damage<br>
caused by replies being unintentionally private that I believe, in the<br>
balance, the net harm caused by Reply-To munging is greater than the net<br>
benefit it provides.<br>
<br>
<br>
But, like I said, I'm no longer local to the LUG and I hardly ever post<br>
here any more, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. My main<br>
point is simply to present the arguments against Reply-To munging by<br>
mailing list software because nobody else has done so. If you decide to<br>
start setting Reply-To headers anyhow, it's no skin off my teeth.<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html" target="_blank">http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html</a><br>
[2] <a href="http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml" target="_blank">http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml</a><br>
[3] <a href="http://woozle.org/%7Eneale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html" target="_blank">http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html</a><br>
[4] Someone discovering that you're going out with friends<br>
after lying to them about being sick<br>
[5] A journalist accidentally revealing connections to an anonymous<br>
source<br>
[6] See "Harriet Jacobs" (pseudonym), whose contacts and Google Reader<br>
data were automatically exposed to her abusive ex-husband by the<br>
Buzz launch; unfortunately, while you can find many references to<br>
the incident, her original rant describing it is no longer public<br>
<br>
--<br>
<font color="#888888">Dave Sherohman<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota<br>
<a href="mailto:tclug-list@mn-linux.org">tclug-list@mn-linux.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list" target="_blank">http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>