I was waiting for the below argument to appear! For me, it is the same as "don't bottom post" - they are both grounded in reason, but both are still a pain in the ass... I vote to change to reply to list. -----Original Message----- From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sherohman Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 3:24 AM To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org Subject: Re: [tclug-list] Reply-to on this list On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0600, Yaron wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > I also have root access to the mailing list server, so if I wanted to be > > autocratic about it I could just make the change unilaterally. However, I > > think that would be rather irresponsible. > > Well, so far we've got quite a few people saying they'd like the change, a > couple of people saying they don't need the change, and zero people saying > they're against it. I've been holding my tongue thus far, as I'm no longer local to the LUG, but, since you've said that there's nobody against it... I'm against it. The canonical list of arguments against lists setting Reply-To would be Chip Rosenthal's ""Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful"[1], but that's pretty ancient these days. Google's first hit on it is a copy dated 2002, but Simon Hill's response, "Reply-To Munging Considered Useful"[2], dates to at least 2000, so it's clearly older than that. At some later point, Neale Pickett published ""Reply-To" Munging Still Considered Harmful. Really."[3], in which he points out that, per RFC2822, Reply-To is specifically to be used to indicate where the message's author wants replies directed. He then goes on to argue that, since the list management software is not the author of the message, it is a direct violation of the RFC for list software to set Reply-To. (It should use List-Post instead, as defined in RFC2369. Unfortunately, well over a decade later, clients which properly recognize List-Post headers remain thin on the ground.) Now that the historical archive has been presented, I'll finally get to my reason for opposing the use of Reply-To headers by mailing list: It's a matter of privacy and security. Put simply, if a message which is intended to be public is sent privately, it causes little to no harm. As already seen on this thread, it's easy for the recipient to include it in a public response, or the original sender can trivially re-send it to the correct address. The net result is a minor inconvenience for the sender (who has to send it twice) and possibly a minor annoyance for the private version's recipient (who will receive two copies unless their mail software is smart enough to filter out the duplicate). A message intended to be private which is unintentionally made public, on the other hand, can cause significant harm, ranging from simple embarassment[4] to professional problems[5] to actual physical danger[6]. Even when you consider that Reply-To munging will prevent more problems than it causes, the potential damage caused by a single exposure of private information is so much greater than the damage caused by replies being unintentionally private that I believe, in the balance, the net harm caused by Reply-To munging is greater than the net benefit it provides. But, like I said, I'm no longer local to the LUG and I hardly ever post here any more, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. My main point is simply to present the arguments against Reply-To munging by mailing list software because nobody else has done so. If you decide to start setting Reply-To headers anyhow, it's no skin off my teeth. [1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html [2] http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml [3] http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html [4] Someone discovering that you're going out with friends after lying to them about being sick [5] A journalist accidentally revealing connections to an anonymous source [6] See "Harriet Jacobs" (pseudonym), whose contacts and Google Reader data were automatically exposed to her abusive ex-husband by the Buzz launch; unfortunately, while you can find many references to the incident, her original rant describing it is no longer public -- Dave Sherohman _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota tclug-list at mn-linux.org http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list