Send Outages-discussion mailing list submissions to
outages-discussion@outages.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
outages-discussion-requ...@outages.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
outages-discussion-ow...@outages.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Outages-discussion digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [outages] REMINDER: MAIN LIST NOT FOR CHAT (Jeremy Chadwick)
2. Re: Outages lists configuration thoughts (virendra rode)
3. Re: Outages lists configuration thoughts (Bill Woodcock)
4. Re: Outages lists configuration thoughts (Mike Bolitho)
5. Re: Outages lists configuration thoughts (Jay R. Ashworth)
6. Re: Outages lists configuration thoughts (Joey Kelly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 01:24:08 +0000
From: Jeremy Chadwick <j...@koitsu.org>
To: outages-discussion@outages.org
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] [outages] REMINDER: MAIN LIST NOT
FOR CHAT
Message-ID:
<0101018e115c5a35-bc0b3360-7264-4c88-b67f-ac114ec1c50f-000...@us-west-2.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Jay, is there a reason people cannot be force-removed by admins when
violations happen (re: sending mails to outages@ that should be on,
or remain on, -discussions)?
It will continue to happen until the banhammer starts swinging.
Opinion: simple process: you get 1 warning because humans make mistakes,
Email clients auto-expand the wrong list, etc.. If you do it again,
then you lose the right to play in the sandbox with the other children:
outages@ sub removed (and blocked/banned) but -discussion is OK. (If
they make another Email address, fine, but now there's an annoyance
factor they have to live with.)
Advice from a sysadmin for almost 30 years: telling people no/stop is a
critical part of the role. There are too many people on the planet who
don't listen to "please don't do this" but DO listen when a heavy fist
falls. Sometimes "speak softly and carry a big stick" should really
just be "carry a big stick".
--
| Jeremy Chadwick j...@koitsu.org |
| UNIX Systems Administrator PGP 0x2A389531 |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. |
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:48:46AM -0500, Jay Ashworth via Outages-discussion
wrote:
> Well, to Bill Woodcock's credit, his was the first message I saw this
> morning, and he started it on -discuss, so..
>
> We will be talking about this this week. The real problem I see with it is
> that since so many more people are subscribed to the main list, it may
> generate a whole bunch of messages to discuss from people who are not
> subscribed to that list, and I'm not certain what The Sorcerer's Apprentice
> effects of that might be.
>
> I need to talk to Jared about that point. He knows mailman much better than I
> do.
>
> On March 5, 2024 11:46:42 AM EST, Andy Ringsmuth <a...@andyring.com> wrote:
> >Seconded.
> >
> >Or ?firsted? maybe since I?m the one who tossed the idea out there?
> >
> >As usual, one initial report followed by more than a dozen ?me too? reports.
> >Sigh...
> >
> >----
> >Andy Ringsmuth
> >5609 Harding Drive
> >Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> >(402) 202-1230
> >a...@andyring.com
> >
> >> On Mar 5, 2024, at 10:21?AM, Carl Perry via Outages-discussion
> >> <outages-discussion@outages.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to re-raise the proposal from a few weeks ago that the default
> >> reply-to for the outages list be outages-discussion. I think this is the
> >> only way to stem this tide since it's been going on for weeks.
> >> -Carl
> >> On 3/5/24 16:11, Jay Ashworth via Outages wrote:
> >>> The only other messages we should see on the main list are "it's back
> >>> now". Please take the discussions over to -discuss.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> -- jr '<admin/>' a
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Outages mailing list
> >>> outa...@outages.org
> >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Outages-discussion mailing list
> >> Outages-discussion@outages.org
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion@outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 14:46:03 -0800
From: virendra rode <virendra.r...@outages.org>
To: Andy Ringsmuth <a...@andyring.com>, Outages Discussion
<outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts
Message-ID:
<4541f61fa300ede40c773d7c0e2818cd9c3c2f51.ca...@outages.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Your suggestion to fix is straightforward, however, I'd like to avoid
active outages discussions from being splintered into outages-
discussion@. I believe this will add further noise and possible
confusion as many who subscribe to outages@ don't necessarily subscribe
to outages-discussion.?In the meantime, I am exploring other options.
/vrode
On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 08:53 -0600, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
> Good morning all,
>
> Yesterday?s AT&T flub again showed the need for us all to be much
> more deliberate about how we use the outages and outages-discussion
> lists.
>
> I?m not sure off the top of my head who is responsible for the
> overall setup on these lists, or I?d reach out to that person/people
> directly.
>
> Having said that, can we PLEASE consider setting the ?Reply To:?
> default for the outages list to be outages-discussion? That is
> definitely an option within the Mailman list configuration.
>
> That would eliminate an insane number of extraneous (and very very
> long) messages for those of us who use the outages list as a
> notification source for immediate attention, which I believe to be
> the intent of that list. I?m looking at one message posted to outages
> yesterday that was a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a
> digest message. 513 lines of text!
>
>
> Thank you for the consideration.
>
> ----
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 202-1230
> a...@andyring.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 09:36:54 +0100
From: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>
To: virendra.r...@outages.org
Cc: Andy Ringsmuth <a...@andyring.com>, Outages Discussion
<outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts
Message-ID: <6304b477-3a87-4a8f-80d7-14355601e...@pch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> On Mar 8, 2024, at 23:46, virendra rode via Outages-discussion
> <outages-discussion@outages.org> wrote:
> Your suggestion to fix is straightforward, however, I'd like to avoid
> active outages discussions from being splintered into outages-
> discussion@. I believe this will add further noise and possible
> confusion as many who subscribe to outages@ don't necessarily subscribe
> to outages-discussion.
That makes sense.
What about a new mailing list, outages-new@ or outages-first@ or something,
where you can only post about something if you?re the first person to post
about it, and then it redirects to outages-discussion@? I don?t mean some
algorithmic mechanism for determining who?s first, I just mean public shaming.
:-)
Then if people are really picky about not seeing ?me too!? posts, they can just
subscribe to the one new list, and everybody else can enjoy wallowing in all of
them!
-Bill
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20240309/9a95f414/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 05:20:27 -0500
From: Mike Bolitho <mikeboli...@gmail.com>
To: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>
Cc: virendra.r...@outages.org, Outages Discussion
<outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts
Message-ID:
<CACoNLrx631mKi_iNxhQ5Vy=W9zYO=7p9oe0nryvn+ntb3h7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Honestly, just delete the email and move on. Is it annoying? A little bit.
Is it this big of a deal that we need a whole new list or a new way of
doing things? No. It has been this way for at least a decade and about once
a year something crazy like the ATT outage happens and you get spammed for
48 hours. After that, it's totally quiet save for the other small/regional
outage here or there.
- Mike Bolitho
On Sat, Mar 9, 2024, 3:40?AM Bill Woodcock via Outages-discussion <
outages-discussion@outages.org> wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 2024, at 23:46, virendra rode via Outages-discussion <
> outages-discussion@outages.org> wrote:
> > Your suggestion to fix is straightforward, however, I'd like to avoid
> > active outages discussions from being splintered into outages-
> > discussion@. I believe this will add further noise and possible
> > confusion as many who subscribe to outages@ don't necessarily subscribe
> > to outages-discussion.
>
> That makes sense.
>
> What about a new mailing list, outages-new@ or outages-first@ or
> something, where you can only post about something if you?re the first
> person to post about it, and then it redirects to outages-discussion@? I
> don?t mean some algorithmic mechanism for determining who?s first, I just
> mean public shaming. :-)
>
> Then if people are really picky about not seeing ?me too!? posts, they can
> just subscribe to the one new list, and everybody else can enjoy wallowing
> in all of them!
>
> -Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion@outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20240309/125441f0/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 16:59:02 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <j...@baylink.com>
To: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>
Cc: virendra rode <virendra.r...@outages.org>, Outages Discussion
<outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts
Message-ID:
<801650785.12456.1710003542817.javamail.zim...@baylink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Woodcock via Outages-discussion" <outages-discussion@outages.org>
>> On Mar 8, 2024, at 23:46, virendra rode via Outages-discussion
>> <outages-discussion@outages.org> wrote:
>> Your suggestion to fix is straightforward, however, I'd like to avoid
>> active outages discussions from being splintered into outages-
>> discussion@. I believe this will add further noise and possible
>> confusion as many who subscribe to outages@ don't necessarily subscribe
>> to outages-discussion.
>
> That makes sense.
>
> What about a new mailing list, outages-new@ or outages-first@ or something,
> where you can only post about something if you?re the first person to post
> about it, and then it redirects to outages-discussion@? I don?t mean some
> algorithmic mechanism for determining who?s first, I just mean public shaming.
> :-)
>
> Then if people are really picky about not seeing ?me too!? posts, they can
> just
> subscribe to the one new list, and everybody else can enjoy wallowing in all
> of
> them!
<chuckle>
I'm not terribly fond of that approach either, really; Metcalfe's Law makes
you prefer to have everyone in as few places as possible.
I suppose we might -- if it's technically practical -- have an arrangement
like:
A daemon reposts to outages-notify any message that comes into outages without
"Re:" in its subject line? Or, if the list processor doesn't break the
headers, perhaps any message that doesn't contain an In-Reply-To header; do
email clients still put those in?
That might get us the best of both worlds...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:35:11 -0600
From: Joey Kelly <j...@joeykelly.net>
To: outages-discussion@outages.org
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts
Message-ID: <2673310.lGaqSPkdTl@nathan.bibleheroes>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Saturday, March 9, 2024 10:59:02 AM CST Jay R. Ashworth via Outages-
discussion wrote:
>
> I suppose we might -- if it's technically practical -- have an arrangement
> like:
>
> A daemon reposts to outages-notify any message that comes into outages
> without "Re:" in its subject line? Or, if the list processor doesn't break
> the headers, perhaps any message that doesn't contain an In-Reply-To
> header; do email clients still put those in?
>
> That might get us the best of both worlds...
More too-cleverness...
If the mailing list software is hackable, we could maybe add an X-whatever
header line with an ID, then have procmail/formail (my tools) redirect all
replies with that header to -discussion. The usual problems with such a setup
would will apply: users not subbed to -discussion would be a common problem,
but even that can be automated... if the sender's email isn't in the second
list, he could be notified via an emailed template stating that the message
was accepted but a sub to the second list (or a link to the archives) is
suggested to see all replies, etc.
$.02
--
Joey Kelly
Minister of the Gospel and Linux Consultant
http://joeykelly.net
504-239-6550
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Outages-discussion mailing list
Outages-discussion@outages.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
------------------------------
End of Outages-discussion Digest, Vol 165, Issue 5
**************************************************
