[H-GEN] Mailing List

[Jason Parker-Burlingham]

Bradley Marshall <brad at humbug.org.au> writes:

> On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 12:13:58PM +1000, Paul Gearon wrote:
>> Perhaps, but of the 12 others I'm on (plus others I've been on in
>> the past), none of them are like this.  Most of my lists are
>> programming or computer security related though, so that biases my
>> opinion a bit.
> On the other hand, most of the lists I'm on, which are security /
> sysadmin related, don't use Reply-To.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.  I've come to what I think
is a reasonable and equitable solution.  Obviously the existing
infrastructure is not pleasing everyone, so a bit of a sea change is
required, not to mention that this topic consumes a reasonable amount
of the list's time and resources.

Now, this isn't to say that people on Paul's side of the fence are
solely responsible for this state of affairs; I remember quite a bit
of discussion about the existence of a Reply-To: header in the
pre-mailman days, too.  I may well have participated in a certain
amount of it.

It is often said of negotiations that you don't have a good outcome
unless everyone walks away from the table a little unhappy.  It is in
this spirit that I propose the creation of a sixth HUMBUG list:
reply-to-discuss at lists.humbug.org.au, for the (seemingly endless)
discussion of the merits and evils of the Reply-To: header as it
applies to mailing lists.

Oh, and to add something so this isn't an entirely frivolous waste of
everyone's time:  it's my lovely state attorney-general (one Eliot
Spitzer) who's responsible for putting away a spammer for *3.5 to
seven* years!  Woohoo!  (See
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/05/27/buffalo/ for one
article about this.)

jason, I <heart> NY.  No, I *really* do.
-- 
http://panix.com/~jasonp?BabyPictures