[horde] [imp] default reply behavior in dimp/imp

[Eric Jon Rostetter]

Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>:

> Quoting Eric Jon Rostetter <eric.rostetter at physics.utexas.edu>:
>
>> Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>:
>>
>>> And as I and others have demonstrated, there is no reply to all "problem".
>>
>> Yes, there is...
>
> Still disagree here, at least to the extent that it is such a  
> problem that it needs to be the number one priority.  All alleged  
> stories I have heard are all hearsay.

I would not say this is number one priority either...  But it is a
problem/issue, priority of it aside.

>>> You continually ignore the fact that we DO NOT ALLOW AUTOMATIC  
>>> REPLY TO ALL WITHOUT FIRST WARNING THE USER.
>>
>> If people don't see the option to change the default, and don't understand
>> the warning (both have been pointed out on the list as issues) then
>> there is a problem.  Maybe it is just icon/font size, maybe it is
>> poor positioning, maybe it is color, who knows.  But there is a problem.
>
> Then this is a graphic design issue.  But not an issue with the theory.

Agreed.  I've never argued for a change in the theory (like the others
have).  I've only argued that 1) there is a problem, and 2) we need to
address the problem, and 3) that people were trying to address the problem,
just in a different way than the original person wanted.

> I agree that if we tie the drop-down graphic to the "Reply text"  
> more completely, e.g. through use of a border, this will fix this  
> issue.  I just don't have the graphic skills to make this happen.

Understood...  And if we agree that is the best solution, then we will
need to find someone with those skills (or at least do the best we can).
But maybe we need more discussion first, WITHOUT THE RANTS from some
people (not refering to you or me BTW), in order to determine how best to
make any such changes?  Who ultimately has the skills to make the change
is yet another question, that can only be resolved once we decide what
the best or desired solution is.

>>> just because some users HYPOTHETICALLY may accidentally send a  
>>> damaging message out (how often does one send a "damaging" message  
>>> anyway?  This is just speculative rhetoric at best).
>>
>> No, this is a real threat, not a hypothetical.  The fact that it occurs
>> rarely doesn't dismiss it from being a problem.
>
> But it is not a critical threat.

It may or may not be a critical threat.  It is not a critical threat
for the major of people, or the majority of emails.  But you never
know -- it might prove critical to an individual.  But that doesn't
make it a high priority per se.  Since there are work arounds, the
priority can fall even further than if there was no work around for it.

> The assumption is that someone sends something out to a list of  
> users that is somehow "confidential" or "secret".  But again, this  
> is just an assumption or rhetoric.

Yes, which may or may not happen.  You can't say it won't happen, any more
than I can say it will.  But chances are, it will happen at some point in
time.  And when it does, it may or may not result in a problem for the
end-users involved.  (Just because a policy or law is broken, doesn't
mean anyone will prosecute or otherwise act on it, but they could...)

> Yes, this could happen.  But in PRACTICE, this simply doesn't happen.

I disagree.  But none-the-less I do agree this isn't a high priority
or urgent fix.  We have time to discuss it and debate it. And those
who are concerned have work-arounds until then.

> michael
>
> ___________________________________
> Michael Slusarz [slusarz at horde.org]

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

This message is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied.  Use this message at your own risk.