Re: Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 22:46 -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: You have dropped a nuclear bomb to kill a cockroach, and the cockroach is still alive. I consider this a bit of a hyperbole. Appearently you can still read and post to the lists, albeit through another account. It might be annoying, and you are in your right to dispute the way this is handled, but is it really the end of the (Debian) world? I hope an easily avoidable block from some Debian lists is not enough to scare developers away. Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket
Hi Guilherme, On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:46:25PM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 11:26 +1100, Anand Kumria escreveu: uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the course of last year) to determine where the problem is. I have offered help with dealing with them several times on #debian-lists and yet nobody cared to provide me with any information so that I could do anything. Unfortunately my archives of #debian-lists are not very extensive (only 3 months worth) and I'm not often online (only 90% of the time), so I must have missed your offer. Had I known I would have taken you up on your offer, since there are many other productive things I could be doing. I'm aware of a number of other groups who are on the verge of taking similiar action. So, if you are a customer now would be the best time to bring this problem to their attention. The best time for such a thing for me would have been previously to being unsubscribed from all Debian lists I followed and posted to. After having all my work messed up with, why should I care? Why should you care that an organisation you choose to do business with inflicts harm upon others? That isn't really a technical question, it is more a moral question. Obviously my actions are intended to bias your thinking and your answer in a particular direction. Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of thing on their users seem right? Well that is the judgement call I made. I'm aware that a number of listmasters disagree with this method. And a number agree with it. On balance I believe our efforts to resolve this have been extensive and that this is the best option available to us. I'm not (yet) infallible and I'm, it should go without saying but I'll make it explicit, happy to submit to a review of this decision. Particularly if the technical-committee, project leader or the developers (via a GR) wanted this decision overturned. [ I think that is the heirarchy of the appeals process but, again, I could be mistaken ]. You are punishing people which have nothing to do with the problem. Since technical workarounds have failed and, despite attempts to initiate contact, there isn't any means to communicate with the system administrators - only the customers of uol.com.br have any influence. It is unfortunate you've been caught in the cross-fire and I wish it weren't so. I also wish there was a technical means to resolve this problem as well as someone from uol.com.br willing to respond. But it looks like neither of us will have our wishes granted. Alas. Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, If this goes on -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket
Hi Guilherme, Unfortunately we are caught between a rock and a hard place here. uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the course of last year) to determine where the problem is. The only people uol.com.br might listen to is paying customers who complain about limited access to various mailing lists (such as Debian). While I'd love to be in Brazil, I'm unfortunately not. And that means I'm not a paying customer of uol.com.br -- which means there is no incentive for them to listen to me. I'm aware of a number of other groups who are on the verge of taking similiar action. So, if you are a customer now would be the best time to bring this problem to their attention. Thanks, Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, If this goes on -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket
Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 11:26 +1100, Anand Kumria escreveu: uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the course of last year) to determine where the problem is. I have offered help with dealing with them several times on #debian-lists and yet nobody cared to provide me with any information so that I could do anything. I'm aware of a number of other groups who are on the verge of taking similiar action. So, if you are a customer now would be the best time to bring this problem to their attention. The best time for such a thing for me would have been previously to being unsubscribed from all Debian lists I followed and posted to. After having all my work messed up with, why should I care? Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of thing on their users seem right? You are punishing people which have nothing to do with the problem. You have messed with people's work for no practical reason. You have dropped a nuclear bomb to kill a cockroach, and the cockroach is still alive. -- Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
