-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This is fun :)
Stuart Jansen wrote: | On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 17:07, Jacob Fugal wrote: | |>True :) But what if the material in the mistakenly broadcast email was |>sensitive in some other way? It's the risk of accidental dissemination |>of sensitive material vs. accidental restriction of audience. The latter |>is easy to correct, the former nigh impossible. | | Then it shouldn't have gone through email anyway. Sending a clear text | message and assuming no one will reader it is pretty foolish no matter | what the To: line contains.
That's why I sign my emails and encrypt sensitive ones. But I guess that means the accidental dissemination would be of ciphertext, not plaintext which isn't so bad. You've got a point.
| The equation is really very simple: | | Most MUA are deficient; they lack a reply-to-list feature. | + Most replies to list message are probably meant for the list. | = Therefore, optimize for the most common use.
I guess the problem is that I'm an idealist. I'd like for my headers to do what they're intended to do, not be replaced by what some pragmatist list admin thinks they should be instead.
| Sending two replies to the original sender is hardly a solution. It's an | ugly hack that actually creates a greater problem.
This is due to the deficiencies of the MUA, as you stated above. Don't blame it on the protocol.
I don't see how you can call turning a hack off a 'hack'. "Change the header value of this email while in transit so the recipient sees something other than what the sender sent." Sounds like a hack to me. A hack with a reason, and a popular one at that, but a hack nonetheless.
| If you really want to solve the problem, start submitting patches to OSS | projects. Then start sending feature _demands_ to proprietary software | vendors and web application providers. Good luck, Sisyphus.
After today, I'm actually eager to delve into the thunderbird source and tinker with making a list-reply button for myself. If I can ever draw myself away from this converstation, that is :) As for the demands on proprietary vendors, I'll leave that to the people who use their products.
Jacob Fugal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAEbyk/PO7QochUiQRAoJPAJ9JyE5bdwX4+sN6t4Nn7i9bYxPc8wCfYbXB jM4eKRtpUpcIH1ZcB+YAEBE= =s/Ur -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
