Cristóbal Palmer writes:
Even without the original message text a response is a problem.
I agree -- the addresses are too easy to compute and do end up in lists that are sold -- and would support consideration of changing the defaults as proposed.
But not for 2.1.10. Changing 2.1.10 is dumb software engineering and hysterical policy.
You see, as Jo Rhett points out (apparently without understanding), it will have *no noticable effect* in the short run because *the proposed change won't affect existing Mailman installations*, not even those that upgrade to 2.1.10.
So the right thing to do is to get 2.1.10 out the door as is, and get started on 2.2. Then you can even discuss shutting off the feature in *existing* installations and requiring admins of *existing* installations to reactivate the feature if they want it.[1] That would very likely have noticeable effect *much sooner* than the change proposed for 2.1.10, and would be much less disruptive.
Footnotes: [1] Indeed, I think that makes sense, but I have no intention of participating in discussion until after release of 21.1.10.