Marco,
Email traffic - unsnipped posts, unwrapped posts - none of this really
matters to most people. Most people have hundreds of megabytes of
online storage for their email - regardless of the state of their
personal hardware. Most people use email clients, or web-based email
interface, that a
Steve Kopischke wrote:
on 07/23/05 14:33 'Ian Lynch' wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 15:12 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
At least it annoys me.
I think you are missing the point. Its not disc space, but the sheer
volume of mail to read and sort through on many lists. This is
particulary so when
Steve Kopischke wrote, but this post doesn't concern him personally:
Marco:
While you have brought up a topic that may or may not ever see a
resolution, you might want to consider cutting back on the espresso.
Apart from Peter, Marco's detractors seem to have a difficult time
reading and un
on 07/23/05 14:12 'Chad Smith' wrote:
Marco,
[snip]
I say all of this to say, you're constant outcry for "better email
practices" is a waste. All it does is create the very traffic and
wasted bandwidth that you so desperately wish to stop. That, and it
annoys people. At least it annoys
on 07/23/05 14:33 'Ian Lynch' wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 15:12 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
At least it annoys me.
I think you are missing the point. Its not disc space, but the sheer
volume of mail to read and sort through on many lists. This is
particulary so when the person posts is not
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 15:12:13 PM -0400, Chad Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Marco,
>
> Email traffic - unsnipped posts, unwrapped posts - none of this
> really matters to most people.
Yes, good manners are scarce nowadays.
> Most people have hundreds of megabytes of online storage for their
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 14:46:05 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Ian - You may be missing the point. The original poster is asking
> that traffic on the list be shortened and copies to unsubscribed
> posters be eliminated.
Are we talking of the same thing? Yes, I don't see th
> My foot. I have sent *one* short, clear, polite request after 12/15
> messages like this in one week. If you generate further traffic
> because you didn't get it is not my fault.
Yes, but look at what that request has caused.
F
Marco:
Have you begun following the periodic threads about this topic? Every
few weeks (was my attempt at humor that far off the mark), it seems, we
have the same discussion - how do we deal with the unsubscribed? There
is a need to let the list know the unsubscribed has been messaged - so
th
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 15:27:52 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Marco:
>
> Have you begun following the periodic threads about this topic?
Why, yes, for some years now, and I'm getting quite annoyed by the
constant lack of good manners or (much more often) simple
thoughtless
on 07/23/05 16:14 'M. Fioretti' wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 15:27:52 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Marco:
Have you begun following the periodic threads about this topic?
Why, yes, for some years now, and I'm getting quite annoyed by the
constant lack of good m
El Sat 23 Jul 2005 16:23, M. Fioretti escribió:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 14:46:05 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
>
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Ian - You may be missing the point. The original poster is
> > asking that traffic on the list be shortened and copies to
> > unsubscribed posters be eliminat
Marco:
My apologies for getting your name wrong. Other than changing two "i's"
for "c's," the rant stands as posted.
Ian:
As a group, I think we're getting wrapped around the axle backwards
here. The politeness being displayed by the replies being sent to the
unsubscribed simultaneously wit
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 16:37:06 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> *I* don't have the problem backwards - you seem unwilling to accept
> the solution the list community has arrived at. Yes, Mario, the
> *list community* ignored your explanation. While the unsubscribed
> users *
on 07/23/05 17:49 'M. Fioretti' wrote:
Isn't this translated to: "we who are too lazy and uneducated to
behave ourselves and make online fora more useful will continue to
make a mess of the whole place"?
Is now a good time to remind you that you began this thread and that few
have come to th
Ian Lynch wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 15:12 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
Please end your campaign for control of other people's email, and stop
this annoying ranting.
Good manners and etiquette annoying? I didn't detect too much ranting,
just a pretty reasonable request to try and reduce traffic
M. Fioretti wrote:
2) ... and *I* personally explained how to do that 15 months ago, on the
OpenOffice users list. That's why I'm still a bit pissed, can I?
Right now I get a "servlet error" by the oo.org search engine, but
as soon as you can, you might want to read the thread (started o
Ian Lynch wrote:
BTW, I think you are wrong and he is right. Thoughtfulness and
politeness cost very little, but then I am a bit old-fashioned like
that.
That is why the responses to the OP are so critical.
--
Peter Kupfer -- Using OOo since 'OO4 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Want to help? http://ww
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 16:37:06 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
*I* don't have the problem backwards - you seem unwilling to accept
the solution the list community has arrived at. Yes, Mario, the
*list community* ignored your explanation. While the unsubscr
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Spamming subscribers to accommodate non-subscribers is something I've
only ever seen on OO.o lists (and I've seen quite a few lists that put
this one to shame traffic-wise so you can abstain from making bogus
arguments about how this list is "special"). Most other list man
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:21:34 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
> >2) ... and *I* personally explained how to do that 15 months ago, on the
> > OpenOffice users list. That's why I'm still a bit pissed, can I?
> > Right now I get a "servlet error" by the
Fred Atkinson wrote:
My foot. I have sent *one* short, clear, polite request after 12/15
messages like this in one week. If you generate further traffic
because you didn't get it is not my fault.
Yes, but look at what that request has caused.
And *always* causes *every* time it is made
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:21:34 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
2) ... and *I* personally explained how to do that 15 months ago, on the
OpenOffice users list. That's why I'm still a bit pissed, can I?
Right now I get a "servlet erro
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 17:59:28 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> The good efforts of those who choose to inform both the unsubscribed
> posters and the list of the communications they have undertaken -
> *those* *good* *and* *noble* *efforts* - are being described by you
> a
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:00:13 AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > *I* don't have the problem backwards - you seem unwilling to
> > accept the solution the list community has arrived at.
>
> THIS list community not THE list community.
>
> Spamming subscribers to accommoda
Le dimanche 24 juillet 2005 à 01:27 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >
> > Spamming subscribers to accommodate non-subscribers is something I've
> > only ever seen on OO.o lists (and I've seen quite a few lists that put
> > this one to shame traffic-wise so you can abst
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:25:34 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
> >Seriously. My solution has *nothing* to do with what you said (even
> >in your first reply) and requires ZERO effort, or awareness of its
> >operation by any list user, subscribed or not. On
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:27:02 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Figure me for disagreeing. But the very action you are blasting, is
> what makes OOo special. Users that care about other users and rarely
> give a RTFM answer.
>
You are confusing the *method* with which answ
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:32:36 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >Yes. This is why I explained 15 months ago, and repeated yesterday,
> >that it requires "Only a one time setup by one regular OO.o
> >contributor" (those who you in another message defined better as "high
> >ran
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 01:23 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I think you are wrong and he is right. Thoughtfulness and
> > politeness cost very little, but then I am a bit old-fashioned like
> > that.
> That is why the responses to the OP are so critical.
But he is
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 01:16 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 15:12 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
> >>Please end your campaign for control of other people's email, and stop
> >>this annoying ranting.
> >
> >
> > Good manners and etiquette annoying? I didn't de
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 09:58:57 AM +0100, Ian Lynch ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 01:16 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
> >
> > Is ignoring a new user and giving them a response without
> > overwhelming them good manners?
>
> Its not necessary to ignore them. Marco is, I believ
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:28:51 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Fred Atkinson wrote:
> >>My foot. I have sent *one* short, clear, polite request after 12/15
> >>messages like this in one week. If you generate further traffic
> >>because you didn't get it is not my fault.
> >
On Sunday 24 July 2005 09:57, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 01:23 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
> > Ian Lynch wrote:
> > > BTW, I think you are wrong and he is right. Thoughtfulness and
> > > politeness cost very little, but then I am a bit old-fashioned like
> > > that.
> >
> > That is
On Sunday 24 July 2005 08:08, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:32:36 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
>
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >Yes. This is why I explained 15 months ago, and repeated yesterday,
> > >that it requires "Only a one time setup by one regular OO.o
> > >contributor" (tho
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 15:06:46 PM +0100, CPHennessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> However as can very easily be seen from many emails from
> unsubscribed posters their grasp of PC technology many not be that
> good.
CPH,
glad you stepped in, I also hope to save some of your future time with
all
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 15:12:39 PM +0100, CPHennessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm not sure what exact solution you were proposing but if it is an
> automatic email to unsubscribed users, then yes, I do that
> already.
No, it's something else, which is complementary to what you are
already doing
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:32:36 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Yes. This is why I explained 15 months ago, and repeated yesterday,
that it requires "Only a one time setup by one regular OO.o
contributor" (those who you in another message defined better a
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 15:12:39 PM +0100, CPHennessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm not sure what exact solution you were proposing but if it is an
automatic email to unsubscribed users, then yes, I do that
already.
No, it's something else, which is complementary to what yo
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 11:09:36 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Gee, about 1.5 months ago, CPH asked/begged for more volunteers to
> moderate, and I didn't hear you raising your hand our offering to
> help.
IIRC, I was unsubscribed at that time, being on vacation. If I had
s
On 7/24/05, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 15:12:39 PM +0100, CPHennessy
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what exact solution you were proposing but if it is an
> > automatic email to unsubscribed users, then yes, I do that
> > already.
>
> No, it's s
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 11:15:21 AM -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Thank you for finally posting the proposed solution. I realize you
> posted it 15 months ago, but the archives are down. You would think
> we could have saved a lot of time if you just would have done this
> at
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 12:36:31 PM -0400, Chad Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> if *YOU MARCO* won't do it, why the hell should anyone else?
As already said, I have no computer which I can leave online 24/7, and
this is not going to change.
Is this concept *too* technical for you?
If the idea is
On 7/24/05, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for knowing my bank balance, job status, problems and fixed
> expenses so much better than me.
You seem to know everyone else's on the list. You seem to know that
everyone on the list has one of these computers with always on access.
Y
On 7/24/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/24/05, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for knowing my bank balance, job status, problems and fixed
> > expenses so much better than me.
And what the hell does your money have to do with it, anyway? So may
be poor, so wh
on 07/24/05 12:07 'M. Fioretti' wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 12:36:31 PM -0400, Chad Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
if *YOU MARCO* won't do it, why the hell should anyone else?
As already said, I have no computer which I can leave online 24/7, and
this is not going to change.
Is this co
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 13:17:01 PM -0400, Chad Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On 7/24/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/24/05, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for knowing my bank balance, job status, problems and fixed
> > > expenses so much better than
Mrco wrote:
> No, it's something else, which is complementary to what you are already doing:
So it took 50 or so messages to get to this point:
> 1) Unsubscribed user posts to list
> 2) procmail recognizes that message as coming from unsubscribed user, and
> memorizes subject and original unsub
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 17:31:58 PM +, Jonathon Blake
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Mrco wrote:
>
> > No, it's something else, which is complementary to what you are already
> > doing:
>
> So it took 50 or so messages to get to this point:
>
> > 1) Unsubscribed user posts to list
> > 2) procma
Chad Smith wrote:
On 7/24/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/24/05, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for knowing my bank balance, job status, problems and fixed
expenses so much better than me.
And what the hell does your money have to do with it, anyway? So may
On 7/24/05, Peter Kupfer OOo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Smith wrote:
>> So may
> > be poor, so what? I make less than $20,000 a year
> > -Chad Smith
>
> What about all the kickbacks from MS for supporting their products in
> the open source/Linux world? Huh? :)
Well, if I don't report it
This "discussion ?" has wasted far more bandwidth than duplicate messages ever
did.
- -
Larry Gusaas,
Moose Jaw, Sask.
http://larry-gusaas.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
On 24 Jul 2005 at 13:02, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> This "discussion ?" has wasted far more bandwidth than duplicate
> messages ever did.
> - -
+1
Can we call an end to this now?
and BTW, I have found it very easy to configure the spam filter in my
Pegasus email client to drop these "duplicate" m
Larry Gusaas írta:
This "discussion ?" has wasted far more bandwidth than duplicate messages ever
did.
- -
Larry Gusaas,
Moose Jaw, Sask.
http://larry-gusaas.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comm
Mrco wrote:
> Yes. I am seriously proposing to look, or at least put a request on the web
> pages, for somebody who can do it.
> I suggested something based on subject and sender, so it would work in
> i), iv), v) and vi).
You conveniently ignored the critical thing in my message.
Post the pro
On Sunday 24 July 2005 16:32, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 15:12:39 PM +0100, CPHennessy
>
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I'm not sure what exact solution you were proposing but if it is an
> > automatic email to unsubscribed users, then yes, I do that
> > already.
>
> No, it's somet
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 22:42:43 PM +, Jonathon Blake
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You conveniently ignored the critical thing in my message.
which would be, if I may ask?
> Post the procmail recipe that you think does what you claim can be done.
OK. Don't hold your breath since I have to pay
Marco wrote:
> > You conveniently ignored the critical thing in my message.
> which would be, if I may ask?
The procmail recipes.
Without them, your entire thesis is invalid.
With them, it probably is still invalid.
xan
jonathon
--
Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards?
--
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 00:09:49 AM +0100, CPHennessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Now please somebody explain me what are the concrete, technical
> > obstacles to this.
>
> Actually finding the time and energy to do this.
1) this is NOT a technical obstacle, so my friendly provocation still
h
On 7/24/05, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 00:09:49 AM +0100, CPHennessy
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > > Now please somebody explain me what are the concrete, technical
> > > obstacles to this.
> >
> > Actually finding the time and energy to do this.
>
> 1) thi
On 7/25/05, klaus schmirler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Different point: I, and certainly many others, at one point didN#t
> know anything about mailing lists or the usenet (where I read the list
> now), but I have learned. An automated mail telling people how to
> subscribe to either service, pe
On Monday 25 July 2005 00:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 00:09:49 AM +0100, CPHennessy
>
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Now please somebody explain me what are the concrete, technical
> > > obstacles to this.
> >
> > Actually finding the time and energy to do this.
>
> 1) this is
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 23:12:51 PM +0100, CPHennessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Monday 25 July 2005 00:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
> >
> > May I friendly suggest, in YOUR interest, that you just stop cold
> > turkey running in this Guinea pig wheel for a couple of weeks,
> > and use that same time to
This email is one big "I can't really do what I said I could do, and
would be easy to do" message. This is getting sad, Marco, it really
is.
-CHad Smith
On 7/25/05, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 23:12:51 PM +0100, CPHennessy
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Mon
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:41:12 -0700, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:00:13 AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> *I* don't have the problem backwards - you seem unwilling to
> accept the solution the list community has arrived at.
THIS list co
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:36:31 -0700, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, if you, the orginiator of this
supposedly "Brilliant idea" refuse to do it, even though you
religiously believe in its merit to the point of annoying the hell out
of people with your ranting, if *YOU MARCO* won't do i
On 7/26/05, Eugene T.S. Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe because somebody else has Linux connected to an
> always-on-connection, while Marco doesn't. Maybe because it costs him lots
> of money just for a regular connection. Maybe he pays by the kilobyte. I'm
> sure that you'll argue that he
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 16:34:20 PM -0700, Eugene T.S. Wong
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:41:12 -0700, M. Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 01:00:13 AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot
> >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>
> >>Spamming subscribers to accommoda
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 20:05:59 PM -0400, Chad Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On 7/26/05, Eugene T.S. Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe because somebody else has Linux connected to an
> > always-on-connection, while Marco doesn't. Maybe because it costs him lots
> > of money just for
69 matches
Mail list logo
