On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > >My -1 was implied by the fact that I intentionally set up the list to > >have no munging. > > > >It is more than just MHO that munging is wrong and harmful. I'll leave > >the googling to you, but many smart and wise people agree that "munging > >reply-to is considered harmful." > > > The inconsistency with this is more harmful. Many other Fedora lists > change the reply address. Decide on it, one way or the other and stick > with it across all the Fedora mailing lists rather than having a > individual policy for each and every list which is inconsistent with > each other. My vote for +1 implied staying with what others lists have > followed. If it's require a debate, its needed to be done at the project > level and not here. I disagree. The project-level decision was made outside of our control, long before I was involved. I think it was an incorrect decision to make. Fedora is about leading with smart standards, not doing the same things others do because it is comfie. If we are to make a project-level change, it has to start somewhere. But really, much better people than me have debated reply-to munging endlessly. I happen to fall on one side of that debate, but whatever. There are more important things to worry about than the fact that we make every person fend for themselves on mailing lists by enabling them to accidentally send private thoughts to world. I, for one, always check my headers before I send. Which is why I'm not usually caught by munging or lack of munging. My email goes where I want it to go because I sent it that way, not because of some munging. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Red Hat SELinux Guide http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
