Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 07:32:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for > offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the > forums. People need to learn that mailing lists *always* have some off-topic content, partly because topics drift, partly because people have different notions of what, precisely, is on-topic, and partly because people are lazy and/or arseholes. The amount of traffic on this list is so low that what off-topic stuff we get just doesn't matter. Learn to ignore it if you don't care about it, just like I ignore anything about Windows. > Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better > off shutting it down entirely? Yes. No. Better to shut down the forums, as mailing lists are always a better way of communicating than web forums are. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig There are many different types of sausages. The best are from the north of England. The wurst are from Germany. -- seen in alt.2eggs... ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
hey there, can we all stop this thread? since I was the person at the start who asked the question on what is going to happen when the iplayer changes because of the white paper? and what effects will be felt to get_iplayer I would request we stop this thread please? thanks for reading. Majid On 18/05/2016, Michael Pavling wrote: > On many occasions, C E Macfarlane wrote: >> Please see below ... >> >> www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > > > > A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > > > Please don't feed the trolls. > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer > ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On many occasions, C E Macfarlane wrote: > Please see below ... > > www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? Please don't feed the trolls. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
If you don't read below the top part of the message you might not see what I have written below, but that's where my replies are nonetheless. If you can't see them because your MUA does not let you see them I sugest you get it fixed or find one that is less broken. On 18 May 2016 20:20:05 BST, Dennis Smith wrote: >How about, we don't bring the list down to the level of a Fox/Sky >broadcast? By posting without proper quotation and with disregard to the list guidelines that have already been referenced I feel this is precisely what you are doing. >As the thread has been mangled (it was one thread but people changed >the subject line fudging threaded view), I cannot find the original >comment without taxing my sore brain right now. If your MUA is breaking threads because of changed Subject headers this is a problem with your MUA. Threads are created using the References and In-Reply-To headers, not Subject. Broken threads may also be caused by broken MUAs not correctly setting the References and In-Reply-To headers. Please get your broken MUA fixed or find one that isn't broken, and stop trying to cripple everyone else's email experience to suit your crippled MUA. >However I wanted to >elaborate on my comment about not reading the messages below the top >part. To clarify, in received messages the old parts of the message >are filtered out and only the new part of the message is visible, if >you put your comment in the middle of the message, it's not shown to >me. This is a problem with your MUA. If it filters the old parts of the message without even giving you the option of showing them it is removing the ability to quote relevant parts. Google Mail hides (collapses) quoted text blocks but at least gives the option of expanding them. I currently use five different MUAs: Kaiten Mail (based on K-9 Mail), Mozilla Thunderbird, Gmail (web interface), Evolution, and Mutt. I have also used, that I can remember, K-9 Mail, Gmail (Android), Pine, Sylpheed Claws/Claws Mail, Eudora, Yahoo! (old interface), Outlook (2000?), and Netscape/Mozilla before Thunderbird and Firefox became things. I don't recall having any trouble with properly quoted messages with any of these. It really sounds like your MUA is in the minority. >I have about 30 messages that are largely a pile of nonsense mush >without context or meaning, that in order to read the full message >including original content I have to open each one separately. This is backwards. The context is provided by quoting text then adding your reply below the quoted text. The whole message followed by whole reply (or whole reply followed by whole message in the case of top-posting) only really works for small messages. Email is not SMS or instant messaging. There are often many points made in one email, each soliciting a response, which naturally leads to an interposed quote-reply format. >Also I am subscribed to about 80 different groups with daily emails (I >receive well over a 1000 emails a day as a result) and I have no >trouble with any of them except the 2 lists that insist on interposed >or bottom posting. Is this a competition? You win on the number of mailing lists (I currently subscribe to about 65), but your experience is totally opposite to mine: I am on one list where top-posting is the norm (two if we're counting private lists, in which case I'm on ~70-75 lists overall), but don't think I've seen anyone complain about interposed quotes and replies before you. Some lists are announce only, so the quoting method doesn't apply. The remainder all favour what you call interposed posting. Regards, Simon Ward -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
To wit, at this point I think I speak for most recipients in declaring that this thread's run its course. It's now serving no use except to sustain a circular conversation and add to my inbox. Please, let's all move on to more useful discussions. Have a good evening all. Chris ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
How about, we don't bring the list down to the level of a Fox/Sky broadcast? As the thread has been mangled (it was one thread but people changed the subject line fudging threaded view), I cannot find the original comment without taxing my sore brain right now. However I wanted to elaborate on my comment about not reading the messages below the top part. To clarify, in received messages the old parts of the message are filtered out and only the new part of the message is visible, if you put your comment in the middle of the message, it's not shown to me. I have about 30 messages that are largely a pile of nonsense mush without context or meaning, that in order to read the full message including original content I have to open each one separately. Also I am subscribed to about 80 different groups with daily emails (I receive well over a 1000 emails a day as a result) and I have no trouble with any of them except the 2 lists that insist on interposed or bottom posting. Dennis Smith M1DLG On 18 May 2016 at 19:55, C E Macfarlane wrote: > Please see below ... > > www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > >> -Original Message- >> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On >> Behalf Of Veni Vidi Video >> Sent: 18 May 2016 19:20 >> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org >> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... >> >> Okay, everyone is thinking it, so I'll say it. If C E >> Macfarlane were banned from the list the vast majority of the >> truly offensive OT noise would be eliminated. > > Well, for the most part I think I am responding to people flaming me, as you > have just done! This suggests to me that the cure is not as simple as you > make out. > >> It's easy to >> filter him out > > Yes, and that would certainly be preferable to continuing the flame war. > >> but unfortunately various people rise to the >> bait > > Again, as you have done. > >> and respond to his nastiness > > Mmmm! Pots and kettles! > >> and those people may in >> other threads provide useful observations. > > As indeed I have done in the past, and may do so in future. > >> At a minimum, I suggest to everyone that you just not respond >> to Macfarlane. Yes, he'll flame you. I know beyond a doubt >> he'll flame me for this. > > Well, you may consider the above a flame, but, given the provocation, it > seems a fairly reasonable response to me! > > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 19:55 +0100, C E Macfarlane wrote: > Please see below ... > > www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html Please stop putting this at the top of every message you send. It really does look like you are explicitly referring people to see the URL "below" (on the very next line). Signatures belong at the end of the message, after a line which contains only '-- ' (dash dash space). -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Please see below ... www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > -Original Message- > From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On > Behalf Of Veni Vidi Video > Sent: 18 May 2016 19:20 > To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... > > Okay, everyone is thinking it, so I'll say it. If C E > Macfarlane were banned from the list the vast majority of the > truly offensive OT noise would be eliminated. Well, for the most part I think I am responding to people flaming me, as you have just done! This suggests to me that the cure is not as simple as you make out. > It's easy to > filter him out Yes, and that would certainly be preferable to continuing the flame war. > but unfortunately various people rise to the > bait Again, as you have done. > and respond to his nastiness Mmmm! Pots and kettles! > and those people may in > other threads provide useful observations. As indeed I have done in the past, and may do so in future. > At a minimum, I suggest to everyone that you just not respond > to Macfarlane. Yes, he'll flame you. I know beyond a doubt > he'll flame me for this. Well, you may consider the above a flame, but, given the provocation, it seems a fairly reasonable response to me! ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On May 18, 2016, at 6:01 AM, C E Macfarlane wrote: > ... have you no sense of your own hypocrisy in that by making such a > pointless, > not to mention insulting, complaint you actually add uselessly to the very > noise that you complain about ???!!! ... Okay, everyone is thinking it, so I'll say it. If C E Macfarlane were banned from the list the vast majority of the truly offensive OT noise would be eliminated. It's easy to filter him out, but unfortunately various people rise to the bait and respond to his nastiness, and those people may in other threads provide useful observations. At a minimum, I suggest to everyone that you just not respond to Macfarlane. Yes, he'll flame you. I know beyond a doubt he'll flame me for this. But consider the source. I promise I will not respond. -vvv ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
The web itself didn't exist until the early 1990s, and it took a bit longer than that for web forums to appear. Internet email is nearly 20 years older than that and was in quite wide use when I started using it in the mid 1980s. I'm less sure about dates for newsgroups but I believe they are also substantially older than the web, by at least a decade. So not from remotely similar eras, unless by that you mean "the couple of decades when only techie people used the internet". -- Owen Smith Cambridge, UK > On 18 May 2016, at 12:36, C E Macfarlane wrote: > > Email, newsgroups, and web forums all date from a similar era! ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Please see below ... www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > -Original Message- > From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On > Behalf Of James Scholes > Sent: 18 May 2016 13:49 > To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... > > Please, for the love of God, see below. [Please let's not, so snip more noise about more noise about ...] As there is no smiley in your reply, I assume you must mean it for real - have you no sense of your own hypocrisy in that by making such a pointless, not to mention insulting, complaint you actually add uselessly to the very noise that you complain about ???!!! If you wish us all to take your advice, start by following it yourself! ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Please, for the love of God, see below. C E Macfarlane wrote: > Better to do it IF there is the demand. So far we've only heard NAYs in > response here, so it doesn't seem likely, but if as many or more YEAHs > appear, then I would be willing to pursue the matter further. It's now reached the stage where the noise about the off-topic noise has become louder than the original off-topic noise it was aiming to stop, with people replying just to score points against the opposition. Honestly I've worked with children who are less likely to answer back than some of the adults on this list. Personally, rather than some theoretical vote about some silly idea to move to a newsgroup which isn't going to happen, I vote we all just shut up. The list is clearly here to stay, get_iplayer is working, everyone is happy. If you want to discuss newsgroup clients, go elsewhere. No wonder a forum was created for GiP - I wouldn't wish wading through this mess on anybody, least of all the developer(s) of the fine software we all use every day. In many other communities, the continued proliferation of this sort of traffic would see you removed and/or moderated at the very least. Please try to bear that in mind before replying to me just to tell me how much you disagree with my tone. Or if you do, have the decency and common sense to do it off-list. Thank you, and a good afternoon to you all. -- James Scholes http://twitter.com/JamesScholes ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Please see below ... www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > -Original Message- > From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On > Behalf Of SquarePenguin > Sent: 18 May 2016 13:16 > To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk > Cc: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... > > On 18/05/2016 12:36, C E Macfarlane wrote: > > I am merely pointing out that the requirements of this list > might be better > > served by a newsgroup rather than a web-forum. > > Why don't you set one up and publicise it? > > Better to just do it rather than pontificate about it. Better to do it IF there is the demand. So far we've only heard NAYs in response here, so it doesn't seem likely, but if as many or more YEAHs appear, then I would be willing to pursue the matter further. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 18/05/2016 12:36, C E Macfarlane wrote: I am merely pointing out that the requirements of this list might be better served by a newsgroup rather than a web-forum. Why don't you set one up and publicise it? Better to just do it rather than pontificate about it. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Email, newsgroups, and web forums all date from a similar era! So your so-called 'obvious' arguments are all straw men, you haven't really got a single, cogent argument at all! I am merely pointing out that the requirements of this list might be better served by a newsgroup rather than a web-forum. That the majority of people here may not WISH to migrate to a newsgroup I can entirely accept, but there is no technical or similar reason to prevent it. Well if you are inviting a referendum I do not wish to migrate to a news group, or a forum. I like mailing lists even ones where people send endless, untrimmed and top posted messages. M ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Please see below ... www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html Note: When you reply to an email message, the header of the message being replied to is normally here, so your placing of some, but not all, of your reply here makes it look as though the rest of the message beyond the header below is just untrimmed quoting, and, habitually, therefore not worth scrolling down any further for. If you want people to be certain of seeing and reading ALL of your message, it would be better to not to write anything here, but instead ... > -Original Message- > From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On > Behalf Of Shevek > Sent: 17 May 2016 13:33 > To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk > Cc: get_iplayer; David Woodhouse > Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... ... start here! So (quoted out of order in the interests of clarity) ... > Er, did you actually bother reading to the end of my reply where I did > reply to your points? ... I'm sorry, but, for the above reason, I didn't see the rest of your message, for which I accept responsibility of habit, not laziness, as I think you must also accept some responsibility for confusing quoting. > Outlook does not put in the " Please see below ..." Nobody's complaining about "Please see below ..." To return to the missed section of your earlier post ... > How many people on this list do you think know about NNTP, let alone > use it still? I don't know, and I suspect neither do you, but the fact that they are using something involved as GiP instead of just a normal PVR implies a level of technical willingness to learn. > You are asking probably 90-95% of this list to: You have no real basis for such figures, the truth is that neither of us knows what the percentage would be. > a) download and install a client (I am aware that some use email > clients with built in news reading capabilities [snip]) Yes, and, depending on your OS, there are various other possibilities. > b) gain access to an NNTP service (not all ISPs provide it any more) For text only, there are many free options, it's usually only binary downloads that require payment. > c) configure the client Usually easier than trying to configure an email client. > d) learn to use the client Again, pretty easy. > e) learn new rules Not much different from a list such as this. > People know web forums and people know email. Asking them to use a 90s > technology is, frankly, ridiculous. Email, newsgroups, and web forums all date from a similar era! So your so-called 'obvious' arguments are all straw men, you haven't really got a single, cogent argument at all! I am merely pointing out that the requirements of this list might be better served by a newsgroup rather than a web-forum. That the majority of people here may not WISH to migrate to a newsgroup I can entirely accept, but there is no technical or similar reason to prevent it. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 17/05/16 16:38, Simon Morgan wrote: I should add that I hope we don't lose the extremely helpful answers from Vangelis on this list. I think I have learnt more from his postings than almost any other. Rgds Simon Morgan +1 Without a shadow of doubt the most helpful poster on this list by far. A ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
I should add that I hope we don't lose the extremely helpful answers from Vangelis on this list. I think I have learnt more from his postings than almost any other. Rgds Simon Morgan -Original Message- From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Simon Morgan Sent: 17 May 2016 07:47 To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org Subject: RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... I would be very sad to lose this list. I can tolerate a bit of off-topic noise provided people remain civil which, sadly, is not always the case. Keep up the (mostly) good work you posters. Thanks to all gip developers for an excellent facility. Simon Morgan -Original Message- From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of SquarePenguin Sent: 16 May 2016 20:11 To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... On 16/05/2016 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote: > Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be > better > > off shutting it down entirely? >I know that there are several people who can't/won't join/access the >forums and rely on this list for announcements/assistance. >No doubt those several represent many more silent lurkers so I would >say there is certainly a benefit to this list. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 17 May 2016 at 08:48, C E Macfarlane wrote: > Please see below ... > > www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > >> -Original Message- >> From: Shevek [mailto:she...@shevek.co.uk] >> Sent: 17 May 2016 08:33 >> To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk >> Cc: David Woodhouse; get_iplayer >> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... >> >> However, now that I see it at the top of _every_ post you make where >> you make an inline reply, with your "Please see below ..." inserted I >> must now agree that you are simply spamming your URL. > > It's put where it is automatically by Outlook. Outlook does not put in the " Please see below ..." > > Of course, if I was contributing to a newsgroup using a reader such as > Agent, it wouldn't happen like that, it would appear correctly at the bottom > of each post. > >> I know that you will not change your behaviour and do not expect you >> to, this is not an opening for discussion, merely adding my >> tuppenceworth. > > So why contribute to the OT noise then? > > Again, rather as before, it seems like someone who's losing or just lost an > argument is picking on irrelevant trivia to moan about rather than > gracefully accepting defeat. > Er, did you actually bother reading to the end of my reply where I did reply to your points? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Please see below ... www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > -Original Message- > From: Shevek [mailto:she...@shevek.co.uk] > Sent: 17 May 2016 08:33 > To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk > Cc: David Woodhouse; get_iplayer > Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... > > However, now that I see it at the top of _every_ post you make where > you make an inline reply, with your "Please see below ..." inserted I > must now agree that you are simply spamming your URL. It's put where it is automatically by Outlook. Of course, if I was contributing to a newsgroup using a reader such as Agent, it wouldn't happen like that, it would appear correctly at the bottom of each post. > I know that you will not change your behaviour and do not expect you > to, this is not an opening for discussion, merely adding my > tuppenceworth. So why contribute to the OT noise then? Again, rather as before, it seems like someone who's losing or just lost an argument is picking on irrelevant trivia to moan about rather than gracefully accepting defeat. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On Mon, 2016-05-16 at 20:58 +0100, Owen Smith wrote: > > 25 years ago you always replied to emails by adding your text to the > bottom, or replying inline in the quotes, and email clients expected > it to be done that way. I'm not entirely sure when this changed, but > I get the feeling Microsoft had a lot to do with it. It didn't "change" per se. It is still good practice to carefully trim your citations to cite *precisely* what you need to for context and no more, and to place specific responses immediately below those citations. Yes, I'm aware that there are a number of mail clients, especially on mobile devices, which make that hard. But I read a lot of email, and it is generally the case that the top-posted ones are much less coherent than the "properly" composed ones. There might be many reasons for that; both causation and correlation. One is probably that you're no longer *reading* the message to which you're replying, as you compose your reply. So you miss things. I often misread messages at first, and realise my mistake as I'm actually *composing* a response. I tend to see it as I re-read the citation I'm about to respond to... which wouldn't happen if I were top-posting. I also see a number of top-posted messages where the sender obviously hasn't quite understood what they're responding to — where responding "properly" may well have helped, as it does me. There's also comprehension for the recipient. I've also seen a lot of top-posted messages with a one-line response or question where it's not entirely clear *what* that one line is responding to, in the whole of the mail that's blindly cited below. With correctly formatted replies, it's easy to cite one line, and put your own one-line response immediately below it. And even where the meaning *can* be discerned, I often find myself jumping back and forth in a top-posted message, trying to match each part of the response to the misplaced citation which *should* have been right next to it. It's a horrible waste of time, and makes reading such messages extremely inefficient. And generally, there is just a lack of precision which cannot be otherwise explained. This is the 'correlation' part. Perhaps it's just because grumpy pedants like to stick to the "old ways", and grumpy pedants are also quite keen on expressing themselves clearly and using the language correctly; I don't know. But a top-posted message is just much more likely to be one of those "wtf were they smoking and what do they think those words even mean" experiences. In a world where I see a *lot* of email on a *lot* of mailing lists, and I need to pick and choose which ones I'm even going to bother reading (and potentially replying to someone who needs help), I have learned that HTML and top-posted messages are generally much less coherent and interesting than properly formed responses. The problem reports therein are much less likely to actually include the information I need to help, and the problem is much *more* likely to exist between keyboard and chair, and not be something that actually needs *fixing*. It also takes (a tiny amount of) extra effort to do things properly, so top-posting can also be perceived as lazy. If I ever top-post, it's almost certainly because I *am* lazy. I'm lying on my arse using my phone or tablet, and can't *even* be bothered to switch to webmail to reply properly. (It usually happens off-list.) For all these reasons, if you post HTML, and if you top-post, then you are just less likely to get technical assistance because certain people (the grumpy pedants who are often most likely to be able to help) are less interested in what you have to say. But sure, this list can stay (I was just checking) and we can continue to have this conversation repeatedly... :) (How do you survive in Cambridge without NNTP and thus without cam.misc though!) -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 17 May 2016 at 07:57, C E Macfarlane wrote: > Please see below ... > When someone complained about your signature recently, I agreed (albeit silently) with your arguments. However, now that I see it at the top of _every_ post you make where you make an inline reply, with your "Please see below ..." inserted I must now agree that you are simply spamming your URL. There is no reason for it to be there when you are replying inline. It is far simpler to delete than to insert your text every time. I know that you will not change your behaviour and do not expect you to, this is not an opening for discussion, merely adding my tuppenceworth. >> -Original Message- >> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On >> Behalf Of Shevek >> Sent: 17 May 2016 07:39 >> To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk >> Cc: David Woodhouse; get_iplayer >> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... >> >> On 16 May 2016 at 21:47, C E Macfarlane >> wrote: >> > >> > So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would >> suggest that migrating to a newsgroup would be a better >> alternative than to a web-based system. >> > >> >> That is such a bad idea for so many reasons! > > Yet it seems you can't actually give a single one. Apologies, I though the reasons obvious. Apparently not. How many people on this list do you think know about NNTP, let alone use it still? There are quite a few subscribers with tech backgrounds so I would guess that it is a higher number than some other collections of people on the internet However, I would guess that we are still quite a small percentage. You are asking probably 90-95% of this list to: a) download and install a client (I am aware that some use email clients with built in news reading capabilities, but the remaining points stand) b) gain access to an NNTP service (not all ISPs provide it any more) c) configure the client d) learn to use the client e) learn new rules People know web forums and people know email. Asking them to use a 90s technology is, frankly, ridiculous. > >> I tell you what, we should all invest in 9600 baud modems and >> start up a BBS :) > > Ah! I see it now! Bereft of logical argument, you prefer sarcasm instead. > I fall back to sarcasm when someone makes an argument as ridiculous yours. It's either that or Godwin! ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Please see below ... www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > -Original Message- > From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On > Behalf Of Shevek > Sent: 17 May 2016 07:39 > To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk > Cc: David Woodhouse; get_iplayer > Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... > > On 16 May 2016 at 21:47, C E Macfarlane > wrote: > > > > So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would > suggest that migrating to a newsgroup would be a better > alternative than to a web-based system. > > > > That is such a bad idea for so many reasons! Yet it seems you can't actually give a single one. > I tell you what, we should all invest in 9600 baud modems and > start up a BBS :) Ah! I see it now! Bereft of logical argument, you prefer sarcasm instead. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
I would be very sad to lose this list. I can tolerate a bit of off-topic noise provided people remain civil which, sadly, is not always the case. Keep up the (mostly) good work you posters. Thanks to all gip developers for an excellent facility. Simon Morgan -Original Message- From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of SquarePenguin Sent: 16 May 2016 20:11 To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... On 16/05/2016 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote: > Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be > better > > off shutting it down entirely? >I know that there are several people who can't/won't join/access the forums and rely on this list for announcements/assistance. >No doubt those several represent many more silent lurkers so I would say there is certainly a benefit to this list. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 16 May 2016 at 21:47, C E Macfarlane wrote: > > So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would suggest that > migrating to a newsgroup would be a better alternative than to a web-based > system. > That is such a bad idea for so many reasons! I tell you what, we should all invest in 9600 baud modems and start up a BBS :) ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
I don't do newsgroups, so for me that's actually worse than switching to a forum. I can join a web forum if I have to, but I currently have no means to read newsgroups nor do I have any interest in finding one. -- Owen Smith Cambridge, UK > On 16 May 2016, at 21:47, C E Macfarlane wrote: > > So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would suggest that > migrating to a newsgroup would be a better alternative than to a web-based > system. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 16 May 2016 at 20:38, tellyaddict wrote: > I don't think that was quite what Dennis meant. Obviously a reply like you've > just done needs to be done in that way to make any sense. > > I was taught when I first started using this list that you were supposed to > post new replies at the top of the email with the message you are replying to > underneath. I have no idea where you got that from Here are the guidelines for this list: http://david.woodhou.se/email.html As linked from the signup page: http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer Specifically points 4 to 6 ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
(large volume of prior replies removed) I don't like change. ;) I like this list. I learn stuff on it. It's so easy to read and participate. List discipline just requires a modicum of self restraint, though we all like to indulge occasionally. This list for me is also somewhat of a spiritual successor to the old backstage list which I also learned a lot from; it'd be a shame if it went away. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Top posting. Ready made OT chat group here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rover800chat/ To subscribe to this group, send an email to: rover800chat-subscr...@yahoogroups.com To change settings via email: rover800chat-dig...@yahoogroups.com rover800chat-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: rover800chat-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to: https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/ On 16 May 2016 at 19:32, David Woodhouse David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 00:38 +0100, Peter S Kirk wrote: > > > > Stop the OT poltical campainging posts: > > "Over 275,000 of us signed an emergency petition to keep the BBC > > independent" > > > > List is for GiP discussion and help ONLY. > > > > Respect that and take politics elsewhere. > > I have barred that thread, although I don't generally favour censorship > as a solution to anything. > > However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for > offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the > forums. > > Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better > off shutting it down entirely? > > Likewise the git repository on git.infradead.org - if development is > happening on github, there's no point in just mirroring it here, is > there? I was happy to provide services (and even try to learn a bit of > perl) when Phil Lewis bowed out, but it now seems that there's a fairly > capable community around it and it's not clear what benefit I continue > to provide... > > -- > dwmw2 > > > ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Please see below ... www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html > -Original Message- > From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On > Behalf Of David Woodhouse > Sent: 16 May 2016 19:33 > To: peter.k...@isauk.biz; get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a... > > > On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 00:38 +0100, Peter S Kirk wrote: > > > > List is for GiP discussion and help ONLY. I think there are some points that need to be made ... The first is that no person, other than perhaps David Woodhouse who I understand maintains it, has the right to claim what this email list is for. When you join, inevitably you are putting yourself in the way of receiving emails that you might not wish to see, as well as accepting that some of your own emails will be equally unpopular with others. You just have to live with that. Posting that you don't like others' posts only creates more useless noise which serves to obscure the useful signal even more. The second is that thread drift will always occur. particularly when the first post in a thread is either unanswerable in absolute terms, or open-ended, or both. I don't have a problem with a thread drifting somewhat OT, as long as it's not too far (and, actually, as someone who seems to have acquired something of a reputation for OT posts, in my own self-defence I will add that generally most of my emails that others consider OT are replies to others who have already gone OT - that is, I'm not aware of starting thread drift recently). To analyse briefly the one that has been banned, it started as a technical question, which when I first read I thought: "How can anyone possibly give any sort of meaningful, informed answer at the moment? Ask it again a year or two on!", and so initially didn't respond. However, of course others did, and as the technical questions asked could not be answered, inevitably drift started to occur, to which I responded when I thought I had something relevant to add, even though by then the thread was already OT. This is the sort of thing that inevitably happens. To prevent it requires everybody, and I really do mean everybody, to be more self-disciplined than they actually are, and to hope for this seems unrealistic to me. > I have barred that thread, although I don't generally favour > censorship > as a solution to anything. Regrettable, but understandable under the circumstances. I for one am not fussed. > However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for > offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the > forums. > > Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we > be better > off shutting it down entirely? As the variety of replies that you have already received indicate, there seems to be benefit in maintaining the list, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to think about the alternatives: * Totally unmoderated 'traditional' newsgroup. - Newsgroup reading software required - OT posts, not to mention spam, might be even more of a problem, but ... + People can't really complain about the above in a completely open system! + A good newsreader can set filters to counter the above. + Noone has to spend time moderating it. * The current system. - Someone has the unenviable task of moderating and maintaining it. - Thread drift inevitably occurs, and there is even some spam. + People can set email filters to counter the above. * Web-based bulletin board/blogging type arrangement. - Someone still has the unenviable task of moderating and maintaining it. - Thread drift will still inevitably occur. - Can't easily set filters against the noise. So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would suggest that migrating to a newsgroup would be a better alternative than to a web-based system. > Likewise the git repository on git.infradead.org — if development is > happening on github, there's no point in just mirroring it here, is > there? I was happy to provide services (and even try to learn a bit of > perl) when Phil Lewis bowed out, but it now seems that > there's a fairly > capable community around it and it's not clear what benefit I continue > to provide... The answers you have already received will hopefully convince you that the list provide
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
This is indeed the "modern" way to do replies, and email clients like my iPad make it very hard work to do anything else. But the argument against this is that someone seeing it fresh (eg. CC an extra recipient) has to read the entire email backwards (bottom to top) to get the context. 25 years ago you always replied to emails by adding your text to the bottom, or replying inline in the quotes, and email clients expected it to be done that way. I'm not entirely sure when this changed, but I get the feeling Microsoft had a lot to do with it. -- Owen Smith Cambridge, UK > On 16 May 2016, at 20:38, tellyaddict wrote: > > I don't think that was quite what Dennis meant. Obviously a reply like you've > just done needs to be done in that way to make any sense. > > I was taught when I first started using this list that you were supposed to > post new replies at the top of the email with the message you are replying to > underneath. > > I also find it harder to read messages that are sent to the list where the > old message is at the top with the reply underneath. When you reply to any > other email, the person replying will usually put their response at the top > with the old responses underneath so it makes sense to me to do the same here. > >> I guess you won't be reading these replies then, all of which have >> been nicely spaced out and responded to each of your points in turn, >> at the relevant point, instead of all in one go at the top where the >> reader then has to guess which reply was to which point. > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 16/05/16 20:25, Shevek wrote: I guess you won't be reading these replies then, all of which have been nicely spaced out and responded to each of your points in turn, at the relevant point, instead of all in one go at the top where the reader then has to guess which reply was to which point. +1 A ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
I don't think that was quite what Dennis meant. Obviously a reply like you've just done needs to be done in that way to make any sense. I was taught when I first started using this list that you were supposed to post new replies at the top of the email with the message you are replying to underneath. I also find it harder to read messages that are sent to the list where the old message is at the top with the reply underneath. When you reply to any other email, the person replying will usually put their response at the top with the old responses underneath so it makes sense to me to do the same here. > I guess you won't be reading these replies then, all of which have > been nicely spaced out and responded to each of your points in turn, > at the relevant point, instead of all in one go at the top where the > reader then has to guess which reply was to which point. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
Apologies but I don't understand the semantics at play with the list but I've subscribed for a few years and find it immensely useful. An answer is always there when I need it so I thank all who maintain the code. Paul > On 16 May 2016, at 20:25, SquarePenguin > wrote: > >> On 16/05/2016 20:14, Dennis Smith wrote: >> Forum? What forum? Is that a web forum that doesn't email everything >> to me? No thanks. > > We do actually have email subscription options for all threads on the > forum[0], but only receive, not reply. > > I looked at implementing reply by email but it was a faff and this list > exists so figured it would satisfy those who like to do things by email. > > The list and the forums satisfy very different sets of users, many who > might think the other is mad for using one option and not the other! :-) > > As such I hope this list does stay as I mentioned in another reply. > > SP > > [0] https://squarepenguin.co.uk/forums/announcement-4.html > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 16/05/2016 20:14, Dennis Smith wrote: > Forum? What forum? Is that a web forum that doesn't email everything > to me? No thanks. We do actually have email subscription options for all threads on the forum[0], but only receive, not reply. I looked at implementing reply by email but it was a faff and this list exists so figured it would satisfy those who like to do things by email. The list and the forums satisfy very different sets of users, many who might think the other is mad for using one option and not the other! :-) As such I hope this list does stay as I mentioned in another reply. SP [0] https://squarepenguin.co.uk/forums/announcement-4.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
When you join https://squarepenguin.co.uk/forums/ it can be set to send you emails whenever anything new is posted. I believe that is the default setting. > Forum? What forum? Is that a web forum that doesn't email everything > to me? No thanks. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 16 May 2016 at 20:14, Dennis Smith wrote: > > Also could people make the posts more legible for current > mail applications and post replies at the top. sorry, but you are completely wrong here. top posting on a list like this makes for illegible replies > Other methods of > posting are no longer supported in email clients any more. Utter rubbish > It's many > time easier to read with an uptodate client that displays email in > threaded view. You presume everybody reads email like you do > If the reply isn't at the top, I don't read it, life is > too short for jumbled up illogical replies. I guess you won't be reading these replies then, all of which have been nicely spaced out and responded to each of your points in turn, at the relevant point, instead of all in one go at the top where the reader then has to guess which reply was to which point. Which method is jumbled up?? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 07:32:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: >Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better >off shutting it down entirely? I'd rather have the list, as a set of forums is just another place for me to forget to look at. Email can be filtered and prioritised and sorted in a useful way. (Yeah, I know, The Kids Today don't believe that. But they've grown up with horrible interfaces to their mail, so it's no wonder.) There are certain posters who only seem to contribute to off-topic threads, and I have them killfiled. R ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
If you don't like the content of the list, there's instructions to unsubscribe. Also could people make the posts more legible for current mail applications and post replies at the top. Other methods of posting are no longer supported in email clients any more. It's many time easier to read with an uptodate client that displays email in threaded view. If the reply isn't at the top, I don't read it, life is too short for jumbled up illogical replies. Forum? What forum? Is that a web forum that doesn't email everything to me? No thanks. Dennis Smith M1DLG On 16 May 2016 at 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 00:38 +0100, Peter S Kirk wrote: >> >> Stop the OT poltical campainging posts: >> "Over 275,000 of us signed an emergency petition to keep the BBC >> independent" >> >> List is for GiP discussion and help ONLY. >> >> Respect that and take politics elsewhere. > > I have barred that thread, although I don't generally favour censorship > as a solution to anything. > > However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for > offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the > forums. > > Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better > off shutting it down entirely? > > Likewise the git repository on git.infradead.org — if development is > happening on github, there's no point in just mirroring it here, is > there? I was happy to provide services (and even try to learn a bit of > perl) when Phil Lewis bowed out, but it now seems that there's a fairly > capable community around it and it's not clear what benefit I continue > to provide... > > -- > dwmw2 > > > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer > ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 16/05/2016 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote: > Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better > > off shutting it down entirely? I know that there are several people who can't/won't join/access the forums and rely on this list for announcements/assistance. No doubt those several represent many more silent lurkers so I would say there is certainly a benefit to this list. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On 16/05/16 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote: However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for offtopic crap Hardly "mostly", just taking a snap sample from the first half of this month, if we ignore this thread, there have been about 40 posts and only 3 or 4 which I would class as OT. Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better off shutting it down entirely? Yes and no, respectively. This is a far friendlier/more accessible list than the other option with better more in depth threads and I for one would be sad to lose it. A ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
I don't follow the forums, and I don't use get_iplayer often. But when I do I'm moderately up to date with the current situation thanks to this list. If the list stopped I'd probably stop using get_iplayer and turn to other means for the occasional programme I want on iPlayer. -- Owen Smith Cambridge, UK > On 16 May 2016, at 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote: > >> On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 00:38 +0100, Peter S Kirk wrote: >> >> Stop the OT poltical campainging posts: >> "Over 275,000 of us signed an emergency petition to keep the BBC >> independent" >> >> List is for GiP discussion and help ONLY. >> >> Respect that and take politics elsewhere. > > I have barred that thread, although I don't generally favour censorship > as a solution to anything. > > However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for > offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the > forums. > > Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better > off shutting it down entirely? > > Likewise the git repository on git.infradead.org — if development is > happening on github, there's no point in just mirroring it here, is > there? I was happy to provide services (and even try to learn a bit of > perl) when Phil Lewis bowed out, but it now seems that there's a fairly > capable community around it and it's not clear what benefit I continue > to provide... > > -- > dwmw2 > > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 00:38 +0100, Peter S Kirk wrote: > > Stop the OT poltical campainging posts: > "Over 275,000 of us signed an emergency petition to keep the BBC > independent" > > List is for GiP discussion and help ONLY. > > Respect that and take politics elsewhere. I have barred that thread, although I don't generally favour censorship as a solution to anything. However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the forums. Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better off shutting it down entirely? Likewise the git repository on git.infradead.org — if development is happening on github, there's no point in just mirroring it here, is there? I was happy to provide services (and even try to learn a bit of perl) when Phil Lewis bowed out, but it now seems that there's a fairly capable community around it and it's not clear what benefit I continue to provide... -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
