Can I vote reply-to-null? That would prevent all mishaps.
Seriously though, this presents an interesting display of the trade-offs
between privacy risks and convenience of use. Given that the purpose of
the list is to perpetuate an ongoing discussion, the convenience of
replying to the entire list seems to outweigh the risk of revealing
private information. Optimally, the from header should say
liberationtech with a inline note at the top identifying the author is.
This would reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of someone
misidentifying the intended recipient of their reply. I don't think the
list software supports such configuration though.
Just as a point of analysis, I've seen distribution lists that were
intended to be one way (i.e. a few authorized individuals may send out
messages) but were configured wrong such that replies not only were sent
to the list, but the list allowed anybody, not just authorized
individuals, to post. Contextually, this is much different, and the
analysis would weigh in favor of making such a list reply to sender, not
reply to all. However, in those cases, the problem results from a
misconfiguration not a failure to weight the risks.
My vote reply-to-list.
*R. Jason Cronk, Esq., CIPP/US*
/Privacy Engineering Consultant/, *Enterprivacy Consulting Group*
<enterprivacy.com>
* phone: (828) 4RJCESQ
* twitter: @privacymaverick.com
* blog: http://blog.privacymaverick.com
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
