>>> Good idea. I'm still not satisfied with the current design. I'm
>>> worried that the On/Off switch for read-only might look like a switch
>>> for the persistence or something...
>>
>> We discussed that IRL and considered that this option was actually
>> useful, e.g. if I need access to my encryption keys but want to be sure
>> I'll leave no trace of my activity. We thus agreed to keep this option
>> there.
>>
>> I'm still in favor of keeping it there.
>>
>> What about replacing the Switch with a CheckBox (which is still allowed
>> for non-persistent options - we can make the label clickable too)?
>
> I agree that the "read only" should be made more explicit. A checkbox
> seems to be a good option.
I was not questioning the usefulness of that option but only the way it
looks. I agree that going back to a checkbox might be clearer..
PS: to the list admins, can we have the list configured to reply to the
list by default, and not to the sender?
--
sajolida
