[H-GEN] Open source firm releases patch for IE spoofing flaw

[Greg Black]

On 2003-12-29, Andrae Muys wrote:

> I consider it rude to send private duplicates when replying to list.

Then don't do it, just as I have chosen not to do it in this
instance.  (Mind you, I don't agree with you about this, and I
only remove duplicate addresses when it's easy or when I know
for certain that this is what's wanted -- on most lists, it's
the wrong thing to do.)

> It is irritating to have to be forced to 'default' to editing headers to 
> obtain 'correct' behaviour.

Surely this is not serious -- the amount of editing that I am
doing in this message so present the content sensibly, putting
my remarks where they belong, deleting extraneous material,
etc., far outweighs the trivial header editing that I've done.

> It encourages people taking discussion off list, [...]

Perhaps it just encourages people to think before they post,
something that should be encouraged in general as far as I can
see.

> It often leads to awkward situations with help contributions/requests 
> being sent privately when the responder desires them public.

If the responder wants to direct the replies, then it's really
easy to do -- just fill in a Reply-To header, as I have done
here, and all is fixed.  This is the real point -- when a list
overrides the poster's wishes by enforcing its own Reply-To
policies, it removes the poster's freedom to make that choice.
I think this is bad.

> These last two I consider serious flaws with the no-reply-to school of 
> thought, I have yet to find an even faintly credible attempt to counter 
> to them.

I'm sorry that you don't find any of many cogent arguments that
have been put forward, including the ones above, to be credible;
but that's the way of human interactions, after all -- we will
never all agree on many things.

For now, the list admins have chosen the way for these lists and
I think we should all probably just accept things as they are
and let this topic drop.

Cheers, Greg