Re: [Full-Disclosure] Administrivia (very OT, but should be addressed)

[Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 19:55:01 -0500,
  Cael Abal <lists2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Bruno, did you read the objections raised in that link I provided?  I
> know how Mail-Followup-To works.  I also understand there are unresolved
> problems with it.

My argument was that it was better than not using it. It isn't a perfect
solution.
> 
> This will be my last post on the subject, but please consider that MFT
> is *not* a standard (and as far as I know hasn't shown up in an RFC
> since the late '90s), supported by only a handful of MUAs...  And the
> (default), polite course of action has historically been not to CC folks
> in mailinglist posts.

I disagree that not cc'ing senders is the default in general. I think it
depends on the kind of list, and the ones I use it is typically preferred
that you cc senders unless they indicate that they shouldn't be using
a mail-followup-to header.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html