You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@apache.org> on 2005/02/17 11:45:09 UTC
Re: The reason I am against setting Reply-To (was Re: [VOTE] on Reply-To on legal-discuss)
On Thursday 17 February 2005 06:19, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Based on the above example, I think that having the Reply-To set on a
> list can be a terribly dangerous thing to do--in one case the default
> annoys you, but in the other, the default can harm you. It seems
> obvious to me that the default that can cause harm should never be the
> default.
IMHO, very weak argument; The default behaviour of a car going 100mph is to
keep rolling and only very slowly decreasing the speed. If you don't take
active action, away from the default, it *will* cause you great harm.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org