www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Reply-to..
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:01:09 GMT
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:58 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> I also prefer reply-to list.  Any objections?
>> If we trust that everyone posing questions for discussion here would
>> be subscribed, then no objection from me.

Given that there are public archives, nobody is ever permanently
excluded -- *IF* the email is actually sent to the list.  All too many
of us, however, accidentally forget to include the list.

> And, it's not as this is a closed subscription list.  So, munging the
> reply-to header would always drop those folks.  There's a real reason
> why the reply-to isn't set for closed lists.  -- justin

Oh, there are lots of reasons ( and highly thought out and published
arguments, such as http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html ),
but unless I misunderstand the ASF's policy on the matter, this is
something that is left to the owners of each individual list to

So, the question stands: would anybody actually object to this list
being converted to reply-to list?

- Sam Ruby

DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message