Moin, even though I missed the heat of this thread, there are some
technical aspects I must address for the future, especially to those
against Derek's view, but Derek, too.
This has gone very off-limits for different reasons.
I understand on the receiving end now that I did bad in the past
myself by being over-verbose. I try to make it short.
- Publicly posed requests deserve public responses, sending private
responses is offending.
- There is no need for private contact as long as the member doesn't
harm the functionality of the public service or its members.
If there are personal complaints worth doing something about
it, then inspecting a "how to contact privately" won't kill
your intention, and then do it off-list.
If that fails, contact the list-owner for help.
Using an invalid/ blackholed personal addr is _not_ harmful
for the purpose of the mailing list.
- Rudeness about ML behaviour is subjective and depends on the
personal experience/ context. As long as normal public
operation is not affected, deal with it off the topical lists
(see above "in private" and below "in dedicated public"),
don't spam where it doesn't belong.
- While Derek over-reacted and before it was his turn, I ask
everyone who _starts_ off-topic requests to put an
invitation on a topical list for interested parties to come
over to mutt-ot and set appropriate MFT+RT headers.
Derek just made things worse where others failed at first,
it wasn't a single person's fault when things went bad.
- There are on-topic places to discuss what is off-topic for mutt-
related places. You have mutt-ot as a _convenience offer_
not to have to search for the proper on-topic places.
Using it doesn't cost you much but helps reducing spam for
everyone else.
If interested parties don't want to follow, they aren't
interested enough, and non-interested parties shouldn't be
spammed for their short-comming.
(not all have broadband + flatrates, yet)
Convenience always applies for both sides. Don't ask from others
what you won't do yourself: accept different (new) ways, if not for
yourself, then at least have others their way.
- Derek: if breaking eMail tradition for spam control is
reasonable for you (however wrong it may be to ask for
tradition in this case at all), then you should understand
new ways being justified for ML off-topic (spam) control, too.
- everyone else: Derek has made up his mind and decided the best way
for him without harming anyone else: it may be inconvenient
that you can't simply hit 'r' to send him a private msg for
a _public request_, but there is no requirement for it, as
long as you can reach him at reasonable time.
As much as fighting spam asks for non-traditional ways of dealing
with it, so does ML/OT handling. Don't become a spammer yourself.
All of you please think before you post, and use mutt-ot where it
applies. I don't mean to kill creative and interesting discussions
or simple administrative meta discussions about the lists. I just
ask you not to annoy (==spam) those not interested in this, since
they haven't asked for it.
Tradition can outlive reason, transition to new standards (reasons)
is always painful. Deal with it, for both spam types: UCE and lists.
For detailed specific responses, read on.
======
=- Derek Martin wrote on Thu 17.May'07 at 16:36:35 -0400 -=
> Actually I don't think spam management is off topic,
When there are on-topic places for _generic_ spam control (there
are), then for this place here it's off-topic, because that's nothing
mutt specific. Places have either "general spam control" or "mailing
list management" as their agenda.
> and even if it were I'm not on mutt-ot and not going to sign up.
So you prefer to become a spammer yourself instead or asking for spam?
I know you didn't start the OT-thread, but you supported it.
> It's completely natural that off-topic discussions arise from
> on-topic threads on mailing lists, and I think trying to reroute
> them is largely pointless and a bit misguided. {...}
> In my experience, trying to reroute threads mostly just kills a
> potentially interesting thread, which usually is at least
> marginally related anyway.
> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one on this list who thinks that
> way. Anyway...
There is a reason for distinction between off- and on-topic.
That's also why there are separate places for them.
And despite having generally (well) known places to carry on-topic
issues there, for _your_ convenience mutt-ot was installed.
> I don't think it should be discouraged until a particular thread
> reaches the level of being annoying.
It has, that's why I've told you, already before it exploded.
If I had known that Thomas was about to post that OT-msg, I'd have
asked him instead, and before you responded chances were good it
would have been silently dropped.
> --
> sig deleted due to evil reply-to: header
You should use the proper place for OT (spam) posts, when
you're so willing to reduce spam for yourself, too.
No double standards, please.
=- Derek Martin wrote on Thu 17.May'07 at 19:56:23 -0400 -=
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:53:06PM -0400, Omari Norman wrote:
> > Ordinarily I wouldn't care enough about it to tell you, but
> > since you seem very interested in receiving opinions on this
> > subject...
>
> I'm not sure what gave you that impression. I assure you, I'm not
> interested. People provide them anyway.
Derek, you're contradicting yourself: if not interested for reasons/
opinions, then don't ask for it, even if it's rhetoric, it's not
always obvious unless you're explicit. There will always come new
trigger-happy contenders to challenge your view. Put up a page
and redirect them, if they care, otherwise just ignore, don't ask
for spam.
I know you weren't the first to ask "why", but again you supported
it by repeating the question yourself and even answering yourself
before the other side asked for it. This qualifies as interest.
Besides all the others showing interest in it (incl. myself).
> [Perhaps you were mislead by me asking Thomas why he was offended...
> It was a rhetorical question to which I already knew the answer.
Unfortunately that wasn't clear enough, and newcomers don't know old
habits yet, so they take it at face value.
=- Darrin Chandler wrote on Thu 17.May'07 at 17:10:35 -0700 -=
> > {...} I remain convinced that my method is technically superior
> > to everything else, even if a few people on mailing lists I'm
> > interested in participating in find it unpleasant.
>
> Wow. I mean, wow.
> You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
As so often, this applies to both sides: take it to where it belongs.
I.e.: not here.
=- Darrin Chandler wrote on Thu 17.May'07 at 18:24:23 -0700 -=
> If you're pissing people off just by participating, you might take
> a second to consider that you, a single person with odd ideas,
> might actually be more wrong than everyone else in the community.
Derek's mere participation doesn't piss people off.
And even not _everyone_.
Some (many?) people prefer solutions only, no reasoning behind it,
therefore they dislike verbose explanations; either because they
assume they know it all already or simply don't care for others'
opinions, and then state their own as imperative.
> Do you understand that other people don't seem to like the way
> you're operating?
Why is it so?
Because they demand convenience for a service that rarely if ever at
all is used (to address Derek in private) at the expense of having to
put more work into spam control. Cost/benefit ratio doesn't compute.
> Do you see that even if you explain why to people now, that you're
> going to irritate somebody tomorrow and next week and a year from
> now? And that this has everything to do with you, and very little
> to do with them?
I beg to differ. In times of changing conditions, conventions are
subject to changes, too.
Just because many of you put an irrational value on the rarely used
benefit of simply hitting 'r' to reply in private, this doesn't mean
you're right, you're just used to it (from the times when there were
no spammers, or you even don't know a time without spammers and are
already too used to it to work around).
What is Right doesn't originate from habit, but reason.
New reasons justify new habits.
Old habits may not deny new reasons, nor justfiy old ones over new
ones.
=- Derek Martin wrote on Thu 17.May'07 at 22:47:16 -0400 -=
> Remember that this (sub)thread started because Thomas essentially
> attacked my methods, by calling my sig offensive. Had he not done
> so, this thread never would have happened, {...}
I'm sorry for not having stepped in earlier.
I'm not permanently present, so I must ask all you members to think
before you post: does it really belong here?
If not -> mutt-ot.
I don't mean to kill creative and interesting discussions or simple
administrative meta discussions about the lists. I just ask you not
to annoy (==spam) those not interested in this, since they haven't
asked for it.
=- Darrin Chandler wrote on Thu 17.May'07 at 21:28:20 -0700 -=
> If email and mailing lists become completely unusable due to spam,
> unless you are willing to behave poorly yourself, then just bow
> out. Somehow the rest of us struggle by. I manage with hardly any
> spam.
So do Derek and I, everybody by the way of his personal preference.
I have an addr exclusively for this list. It's not white-listed, so
if it's caught by filters, it's gone, I don't review it.
Lucky those who pass, bad luck for those who fail.
Derek chose a "safer" approach, which one is better?
My for me, his for him, yours for you.
None of them interferes with the primary ML purpose/ functionality:
to be a public forum.
There is no reason to waste more time on spam control just because
somebody else feels fuzzy about a potentially never used feature.
> The concept deserves more careful consideration. It's not about
> being crazy. It's about being rude. Inconsiderate.
The same applies to all questioning Derek's way.
> Your {Derek's} methods are not odd. Others have used them. The
> same thing would occur to almost anyone in a few minutes, and be
> rejected because it's plain bad behavior.
... by those stuck in their conventional thinking that the eMail
world is either ideal or they are too used to spam that they
accepted it as part of their daily waste of time or loss of eMail.
Not all accept it, and they're free to do something about it, as
long as it doesn't harm anyone. Are you (or anyone else) harmed? How?
> IOW, despite the accepted norms for *this* community, you choose
> to act is a way that does not fit, and that has annoyed people
> around the net for 5 years? Is this reasonable, do you think?
a) Where are those "accepted norms" found?
- They are based on what?
- habit: sorry.
- convenience: maybe.
- reason: ok.
b) Many people are annoyed by many different things:
- TOFU, quote-chars, sigs, attributions, ...
- How to handle all those variations?
> I'm glad this community operates as-is. For the most part, this
> list is a friendly and helpful place.
Derek doesn't break this, all of you denying his preference do.
> > A mailing list is a public forum, and the discussions that stem
> > from it should be held publicly.
>
> I agree. Yet with my public, reachable address I've had very
> little trouble with private emails. A few "me too" or "you're
> wrong" emails a year don't bother me much. They are not, after
> all, spam. They certainly cannot be blamed on spammers.
He's not talking of legitimate private mail, but real spammers.
Some lists are archived publicly for spammers to harvest, spammers
may subscribe to lists.
If you've been lucky so far, be happy. It might even be that mutt
lists are not as vulnerable as others, but once you get burnt (like
I was), you rather play safe with every list, even the better ones.
> I would have no problem with it at all, if only you would stop posting.
Wrong. He did no harm, you (with the others) did by bringing it up.
> Yeah, everyone can be irritating sometimes. Yeah. But if random
> people over a long period of time tell you that you smell funny
> you really should consider doing something about it instead of
> thinking it's their problem.
... or simply put up a FAQ for all those newcomers who haven't
thought far enough and have to be shown alternative ways beyond
_their_ personal preference.
> > As hard as I have tried to understand the notion that my sig is
> > offensive, I can't escape the belief that people who are
> > offended by this are just being silly.
>
> I have this picture of fingers in ears and the sound "LA LA LA LA"
I see those all over the place, ... I mean, at every other place, too.
But Derek isn't one of them (from what I know).
> Of course I don't know what you've learned. Neither do you have a clue
> what I've learned. Cool. But I still see what you do, out here in
> public, and that's the part that seems to irritate me and more than a
> few others.
But not too many to worry about, and not with such weak(er) reasons.
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 18.May'07 at 10:36:56 -0400 -=
> Spam is any mail the recipient didn't want to read. To me, those
> are spam.
So is this off-topic thread, therefore please respect other
subscribers' wishes and carry such threads over to their dedicated
place: mutt-ot.
> I'm done with this thread, the list has already wasted way too
> much time on this nonsense, and so have I, certainly.
All of you could have done better, by either stopping, not starting
or moving it to mutt-ot altogether.
Think about it next time, thank you.
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
