Brian and Elijah, Brian said:

If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list decides to change the setup in contravention of democratic process of the list MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one of many other options for hosting. ... Is it not worth considering that the constant rehashing of this discussion is in itself, something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors attempting to derail effective organizing and discussion?

Safety was hardly discussed in public; mostly only off list. Here's a short history of the public exchange between the subscribers and the university, thus far: Subs. When replying to messages sent via the list, I sometimes forget to hit "Reply to List". Instead I hit "Reply to Sender". When I realize my mistake, I must re-send my reply to the list. What a nuisance! How can we remedy this? Uni. It's possible to alter the sender's Reply-To headers, making it *appear* as though the sender had requested replies to be sent to the list. Then it no longer matters which button you press; your reply is directed to the list regardless. Subs. Yes, let's do that! Uni. But in our particular list, this may present a safety hazard to the public. Also it requires inserting false information into the mail that technically verges on fraud. Subs. (silence) Uni. Did you hear what I said? Subs. How dare you question our democratically reached decision! Did *you* not hear what *we* said? This is perhaps a little unfair. If a proper discussion had been held beforehand, then nobody could have *reasonably* agreed to alter the Reply-To headers without *first* refuting the public safety concerns. But this was not done; instead there was a vote. One subscriber even called for the vote as a means to end the discussion. And now, when the university is required to decide the matter, *again* public discussion is to be curtailed? That is fine, but remember that reasonable arguments of public safety and wilful mis-information are still standing. They have hardly been addressed yet, let alone refuted. (Again, pending that decision, I recommend that the configuration be returned to its default setting. The default is strongly recommended by the providers and its safety is unquestioned.) Elijah Wright said:

Please don't reply-all on private mail (what this appears to be - interim mails did not go to Air-L), and then include lists in the CC line. ... it's unethical ...

Apologies for cross-posting, but the mail I quoted was not private: https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-April/008257.html Mike Brian Conley said:

+1 to both of Joe's comments.

Michael, I'm not sure what world you live in, but in the world I live in, anyone who has information worth considering and is to be respected as a security adviser would NEVER follow the actions you've suggested.

This is a strawman. The world is a dangerous place, and people get hurt. At least give them the agency to decide how best to protect themselves. Quite frankly I think there is a lot of hand-wringing going on, and it really wastes a lot of people's time.

If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list decides to change the setup in contravention of democratic process of the list MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one of many other options for hosting.

I fully understand that Stanford University may now feel they have some sort of legal obligation, due, no doubt, in part to less than transparent actions by a few individuals, robbing the members of the list of agency. Its the University's legal decision, no doubt, but perhaps someone from the EFF can kindly call them and let them know this is a straw man.

Is it not worth considering that the constant rehashing of this discussion is in itself, something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors attempting to derail effective organizing and discussion?

regards all.

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> wrote:

...

(reply-to-list-only)

On Apr 23, 2013, at 16:39, Michael Allan <mike@zelea.com> wrote:

...

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. The list subscribers are not responsible for the safe administration of the list. The university alone is responsible. It could never pass that responsibility on to the subscribers, even if it wanted to.

There's definitely a misunderstanding. I see mailing lists as fundamentally normative negotiations with a foundation of acceptable use, whether administered by Stanford or some other entity. Changing the entity that hosts a mailman list is one of the most frictionless changes which a community can agree to online. So, ultimately it's the list that requires persuasion (in my opinion).

--Joe

--

Brian Conley

Director, Small World News

http://smallworldnews.tv

m: 646.285.2046

Skype: brianjoelconley

Elijah Wright said:

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Allan <mike@zelea.com> wrote:

...

Joseph Lorenzo Hall said:

...

Please don't reply-all on private mail (what this appears to be - interim mails did not go to Air-L), and then include lists in the CC line.

It's unethical and just makes other list members very, very cranky. As does any thread that suggests changing the reply-to bit on any list.

That aside - this ought to be a dead issue. Don't use mailing lists with archives for private or might-need-to-be-private correspondence that might endanger lives or well-being of others. The information *will* leak. In fact - I would suggest not using mail for this sort of issue at all, regardless of whether it's a list or has archives or not. The trail of cleartext bits and routing information is too easily exploited.

best,

--e