Re: Reply-to mangling

On 20 Jul 2005, at 00:01, Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:28 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> No, please don't.
>   My "take" - please *do*!

Before this turns into a flame war, I've listened to both sides (both  
the people who replied to the list and those who contacted me  
privately), and the "Yes" vote significantly outnumbers the "No" vote  
so I've decided to turn reply-to mangling on. Personally I still  
think it's an ugly workaround for something that ought to be an email  
client feature, but I do recognise that I'm in the minority in  
feeling that way.

>> Another list that I'm on had `reply-to' set until too many people
>> posted confidential stuff to the list by mistake.
>   But that was another list, not this.  For that matter, just what  
> sort
> of list *was* that?  As I see it, this particular list here, like

Actually I have seen that happen on technical lists. ISTR one  
instance where an engineer replied to a question from a friend about  
a flaw in a product he designed, blaming his management for being too  
tight-fisted to give him the resources to fix the problem. Of course  
he didn't realise the reply would go to the list the question was  
sent to - a list that contained hundreds of customers and potential  
customers, representatives from the competition, and his boss. But  
that is pretty rare. Nearly all of the accidental public postings I  
see are just off-topic, not compromising. I saw an example two days  
ago that went something like "Hi John, I got the widget you sent me -  
what do I owe you for it?" (the guy presumably couldn't remember  
John's email address so replied to something he posted to a mailing  
list instead, not realising his reply would go to the list instead of  
straight to John).

-- 
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.alexholden.net/ ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer