www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <cl...@bea.com>
Subject RE: The reason I am against setting Reply-To (was Re: [VOTE] onReply-To on legal-discuss)
Date Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:25:11 GMT
I completely agree with Fitz.  On this list in particular, the Sally and
Harry mentioned below may not be familiar with the way Reply-To is often
used with Apache lists and will be less likely to catch the problem in
Scenario 1.

-1 

Cliff

On Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:19 PM, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 13:31 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
> > I'm +1.  I'd like to know why others on not in favor of this.  I use
> > Thunderbird on Linux and it still wants to reply to the person, not
> > the list. It's very annoying to have to remember to reply to all and
> > then delete the individual.
> 
> I'll state very clearly the primary reason why I am against setting
> Reply-To on this list (even though it would appear that I am in the
> minority here).  
> 
> Scenario 1: A private message.
> 
> Let's say that Harry writes something to the legal list, and Sally
> wants to reply to Harry, and *just* to Harry.  She hits "Reply-To" in
> her mailer and writes a very personal email to Harry about some
> confidential information that no one else should know.  She hits
> send.    
> 
> If Reply-To IS set to go to the list (as RoUS is proposing), her
> confidential and very private reply can accidentally go to the list. 
> This can be extremely embarassing (or worse) for both Harry and Sally.
> *** The default can cause grave harm to Sally. ***
> 
> If the Reply-To IS NOT set to the list, Sally's reply just goes to
> Harry--no big deal. 
> 
> Scenario 2: A public message
> 
> Let's say that Harry writes something to the legal list, and Sally
> wants to reply to list.  She hits "Reply-To" (instead of
> "Reply-To-All") in her mailer and writes a public email to the list. 
> She hits send.   
> 
> If Reply-To IS set to go to the list (as RoUS is proposing), her
> public reply goes to the list, just as she intended. 
> 
> If the Reply-To IS NOT set to the list, Sally's reply just goes to
> Harry.  No big deal.  This may be annoying since she has to resend
> the reply to the list, but there's nothing "dangerous" about this
> failure case. *** The default can annoy Sally. ***  
> 
> 
> Based on the above example, I think that having the Reply-To set on a
> list can be a terribly dangerous thing to do--in one case the default
> annoys you, but in the other, the default can harm you.  It seems
> obvious to me that the default that can cause harm should never be
> the default.    
> 
> I have seen Scenario 1 played out several times, and it was not
> pretty (once it was done by the editor of a technical magazine!). 
> 
> -Fitz, done campaigning against "Reply-To" for the day.
> 
> PS My feelings against Reply-To have *nothing* to do with getting
> duplicate copies of a message or taking a discussion off list--it is
> solely because the failure case with Reply-To set can be really
> really bad.   
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
> educational only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal
> advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message