Am 30.11.2010 20:51, schrieb JMGross: > ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ----- > Von: M. Andree > Gesendet am: 30 Nov 2010 18:14:39 > >>> Interesting. How does one know this if he's not the list maintainer? > >> Read the list websites perhaps? > > Well, there's no godly rule that a list must have a website nor does everyone > subscribe > to a list through a web interface.
You *could*, theoretically, find the link in the footer of each and every mail that passed through the list driver... it's not that hard if you just open your eyes (talking about a narrow view of others later :-)). Quote at the very end. > This is not a mailing list about mailing lists for mailing list > administration experts. > It is a list for mspgcc users, and neither mspgcc nor users implies special > or even > general knowledge of what you think what is 'usual' for mailing lists. I find that there is a common lowest denominator on mailing lists -- pretty universal. > Also, not knowing that something (that is not 'common' for 'everyone') is > possible > implies that one does not actively search for it. > > The list is/was working so why searching the web or reading manuals > Simply turning away is the easier choice. And saves much time. > And cannot be desireable. That depends on how burdensome the contributions are that you're waiving. Mailman does quite a good job at separating the chaff from the wheat an at providing two easy interfaces, the web for noobs, and mail for the traditionalists. >> My webmailers run off an IMAP server, no big deal here. > > With the most important word written last. > That something is working for you does not mean that it is the global > revelation for everyone. I know. Web mailers aren't the revelation either, but I consider even the better of them a stopgap measure, a surrogate for real tools, to be used if your usual working environment is unavailable. > Sure. As sure as the term 'common mailing list conventions' can be questioned. > 'Sourceforge list conventions' or 'mailman based list conventions' or > whatever, well, maybe. > But definitely not 'common'. No, common. Some are even IETF standards or best current practices. If that isn't "common", then what is? At any rate it's not specific to Mailman or SourceForge.net. I've seen so many diverse lists, and there are quite a few commonalities. > Once more, you think just because things aren't working for others like they > do for you means > that they use the wrong tools and have to change. No, I see the result, and that is disrupted threads. I don't care why that is or how you fix it, but I would really appreciate if you did. What I proposed is a simple solution that works on lots of computers, is easy to use and set up yet powerful and extensible and behaves quite well (apart from the "send HTML" default). > if Thunderbird is the only mail client that 'does it right' in your opinion, > so maybe it's your opinion that's wrong. There are sufficient others (including free and open source, including lightweight and portable), but yours isn't one of them. > That one or two clients implement features which are niche doesn't make them > any standard nor is it a reason > to discriminate everything and everyone who does not use them. No, but I need not remain silent if other people get in the way of efficient communication for many other list participants. > if you want your world exactly as you think it has to be, then close your > eyes and mouth and be happy > with yourself. Or accept that the world isn't as you think it should be. And > that not everyone will agree to > what you think. I don't require that everyone agrees, but I don't need to invite people whose chosen tools are disruptive. >> Mutt gets threading right, if that's low-footprint. > > What's 'right'? That some mail client has introduced a more clever way to do > threading than scanning the subject > is fine, but does not mean that everything else is wrong. There are standard mail headers for that purpose. See RFC5322 and other pertinent Internet standards. There are there for a reason. Else I might start labelling my Subject: header Gegenstand: and format my E-Mail Adress in a way that is legal in the terms of this standard but would jeopardize not just your mailer's address parsing... > I also fought windmills in the past about how things should be. And I've seen > many clever ideas failing agains > the less clever but more common (or better pushed) competitors. And I calmed > down over the years. > Maybr you'll arrive at this point somewhen - If you didn't get an heart > attack before. I'm not upset if that's your concern. I just strongly resist the notion that the odd one out is asking that the world play by his rules, if the world has set its own (as listed above). > The two border-situations are clear: all interested users as well as any > fly-by spammer or > no spammers, no effort, no tiem to spend but also no users. Both not > desireable. Where to put the border? > "the optimum tax rate is between 0 and 100%" > Sounds obvoius at first, but on the second thought it has more than one > deeper truth. True 'nuff, but not applicable, because there isn't a public purpose to a particular mailing list. > [about challenging list posters] >>> So you want to punish people because their provider uses a system you don't >>> like? >>This isn't about punishing, but about adhering to decade-old conventions. >>Automated replies to list postings, to my personal address, are considered >>undue >>harrassment, a breach of conventions, and I consider that spamming. > > To the first part I agree. To the last, partly. > Yet spamming is a problem anyway. Once more the question is where to put the > border > between fighting spam and producing one through the fight against it. > Anyway, often people cannot do anythign against it except searching for > another service. > Do they? Well, facebook still exists, so the obvious answer is: no. :) You're trying to mix concepts that don't mix. facebook isn't a mailing list. >>And consider the scare it gives if you are the on-the-fly "supporter" from >>your >>scenario and get a dozen challenges back. This mustn't happen, it drives >>(again, scares) far more people away. > > Well, if they are really only on-the-fly-supporters, then they did their work > before getting the 'spam' No, see it from another vantage point then you'll understand why I'm so strongly opposed: Fly-By-Supporter sends to List. List sends to 100 users. By next summer, 10 of these 100 users are using challenge-response-antispam "solutions" and send "oh sorry to harrass you but to confirm you're not a spammer, please reply to [email protected]". 3 are right, go to the list driver which bounces them back, or ultimately unsubscribes the user. 3 other of the 10 require that the correspondence partner takes a Turing test or jumps through other hoops. Do you really think this is reasonable? For 1 post you get 10 back that are asking you to do things? I find it not only unreasonable, but a danger to the public, because it allows multiplying bandwidth (=> distributed denial of service attack vector), and therefore unacceptable. > We're talking about MSP developers. An MSP does not have enough memory to > hold a typical linux makefile. > And has NOTHING to do with mailign list adminstration or common computer > knowledge at all. > In many cases it does nto even mean that there are any programming skills > above elementary school. Yes. So I chose not to support those in my spare time. >>Yes. Mailman strips of the alternative text/html (which is useless and often >>dangerous) part and leaves the text/plain in no matter if it's in utf-8, >>koi8-r, >>iso-8859-* or us-ascii (usually), and if it's quoted-printable, base64 or >>whatnot. > > Fine. Why not converting it to UTF8 or ASCII at teh same time? Then it's > really plain. Which is missing the point when talking about attachments. > I just wanted to state (originally) that the proposed changes, as 'obvious' > or desireable they > might look at first, might (will) have some side-effects that are neiterh > obvious nor desireable. All changes will have side-effects, desirable or not. I don't see how these will affect the list community as adversely as you've adumbrated your concerns. > If you or whoever decides it wants to go that way, fine. I can live with (or > without) it. If I were to decide that I wouldn't even be discussing it, but just setting the rules and tell people to come back if that poses *unsurmountable* problems. I've never seen that happen. BTW, in breach of conventions I am quoting the footer for the sake of showing you where you could've looked for the list options: > _______________________________________________ > Mspgcc-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Mspgcc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
