[OT] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)

[Paul Jakma]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Why do I have to get two and three copies of each of these?
Because you havn't set a Reply-To header? Eg with the list as 
address?

I'm on the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it.  I 
don't need a copy to the list and Cc:'s until the end of time.
Then set a Reply-To. Pretty simple..
regards,
--
Paul Jakma  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fortune:
Coding is easy;  All you do is sit staring at a terminal until the drops
of blood form on your forehead.

[OT] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)

[Dickson, Brian]

Title: [OT] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)





Paul Jamka [PJ] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. [LFSJ] wrote:
LFSJ I'm on the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it. I don't need a copy to the list and Cc:'s until the end of time.

PJ Then set a Reply-To. Pretty simple.


In case no one else bothered to point this out:


Not everyone who *posts* to NANOG *reads* nanog via email.


For example, I read it via the web archive.


For those like us, any presumption about replies to the list being read by us, would be incorrect.


And since no one necessarily knows the current subscription status of everyone else, it actually makes sense to copy both the sender and the list.

As Randy [Bush, of course] points out, if you don't like duplicate mail, you are free to use some kind of filter.


(Please don't bother replying. I am just attempting to get in the last blow before the equine perishes.)


Brian