On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:47:48AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 10:50 AM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When a bot complains to me that some arbitrary ancient module has long
> > since been abandoned, doesn't work under 5.6.1, it's noise regardless
> > of delivery format. It is unsolicited noise. "Just delete it" and
> > "other people like these messages" are comments heard from commercial
> > spammers, no?
> It is spam -- in a sense. It's generally unsolicited.
My own modules' documentation asks for bug reports by either email or
RT, so I consider any bug reports I get to be solicited. But yes, I see
your point.
There is one crucial difference between the CPAN testers and "real"
spammers though - we actually care what authors think. Upgrading to a
version of CPAN::Reporter that supports the skip file is on my to-do
list, and you can rest assured that PETDANCE will be the second author
in there, along with MLEHMANN, as they obviously don't want reports.
I would add as an aside that only caring about bug reports when they are
sent by a "real user" is bad practice IMO. It relies on negative
feedback from your users, instead of pro-actively fixing things. These
days even Microsoft pays attention to at least some bug reports which
come from people who have no intention of actually *using* their
products.
--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
-- Hanlon's Razor
Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice
-- Richard Bos's corollary
