Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

Am 2006-03-18 17:39:26, schrieb Gene Heskett: > >"Oh, I need a mail fil..." > > > >"Procmail." > > > >"...ter which can check on different hea..." > > > >"Yeah, Procmail." > > > >"..ders and run it through a bayes..." > > > >"Procmail, yea, Procmail..." > > > >"..ian filter. Since Exim has filter

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Michelle Konzack wrote: > It make it impossibel, because the are automaticly cutted... > So I will not see the signature... Which is not a universal behavior. The irony your statement, however, is evident below... > Greetings > Michelle Konzack > Systemadministrator > Tamay Dogan

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Am 2006-03-13 00:41:37, schrieb Andrei Popescu: > It was suggested to put the real address (masked) in the sig. This > does make private replies more difficult, but not impossible. It make it impossibel, because the are automaticly cutted... So I will not see the signature... Greetings Mich

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 10:16:39PM -0700, s. keeling wrote: > Incoming from Dave Sherohman: > > That's beside the point, IMO. All the documentation and syntax > > checkers in the world aren't going to change the fact that procmail's > > > > :0: > > * ^From: AntiSpam UOL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > /d

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

Incoming from Dave Sherohman: > On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:11AM -0700, s. keeling wrote: > > I'll wager that procmail is one of the better documented utilities out > > there, considering all those writing about its usage. The tiny-tools > > project even supplies an emacs syntax checker mode for

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:11AM -0700, s. keeling wrote: > I'll wager that procmail is one of the better documented utilities out > there, considering all those writing about its usage. The tiny-tools > project even supplies an emacs syntax checker mode for rc files That's beside the point, IM

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

Gene Heskett said: > And you point is? (ducks and runs) :) No point, just wanted to make a Rainman joke on D-U. The opportunity comes up so rarely. :D -- Steve Lamb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

On Saturday 18 March 2006 15:35, Steve Lamb wrote: >s. keeling said: >> I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing >> procmail. > >Of course, my "abuse" is directly perportional to the amount of > times any particular, ill-suited, poorly written tool is elevated to > the statu

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

s. keeling said: > Incoming from Steve Lamb: >> Like, say, received multiple email accounts through IMAP/POP and >> keep the entire exchange separate for every account without having the >> overhead of multiple email clients. > That doesn't sound too difficult a problem for procmail (or > mailfilt

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

s. keeling said: > I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing procmail. Of course, my "abuse" is directly perportional to the amount of times any particular, ill-suited, poorly written tool is elevated to the status of a geek icon when other, bettern designed, just as useful

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

Incoming from Steve Lamb: > s. keeling said: > > I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in > > any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't > > get that way. Procmail is no exception. > > This is not true. Some languages are designed in su

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Gnu-Raiz said: > Also if it throws off your filters then one should > really check into the problem, and file the proper bug reports, or > adjust the filter to suit. You're not familiar with Bayesian filters, are you? -- Steve Lamb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a sub

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

s. keeling said: > I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in > any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't > get that way. Procmail is no exception. This is not true. Some languages are designed in such a manner that readability isn't hig

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

> From: Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >What is so hard about sending an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject >subscribe anyway? I don't think the problem is really the subscribing part, its the unsubscribing part that is the problem. I do agree with you, is it really that hard to

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

Incoming from Dave Sherohman: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0700, s. keeling wrote: > > Incoming from Steve Lamb: > > > email was. And procmail? Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading > > > > than do without. There are alternatives to procmail if you're that > > averse to it. >

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:06, Tim Connors wrote: > Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:16:45 -0800: > > On Saturday 11 March 2006 01:00, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > As an example, I'd like to propose that I be able to subscribe > > > as a *poster* as [EMAIL PROTECTED], whi

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Incoming from Ritesh: > > Yeah,, > > The rest of the lists (redhat-* or name most others) are stupid and don't > want their users to get help from the list. What are you talking about?!? > -- Your sigdash is malformed. > View this message in context: > http://w

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Incoming from Steve Lamb: > s. keeling wrote: > >"Do one thing, but do it well." That means MTA + MUA + procmail + > >bogofilter + ..., not Thunderbird which does all/some of that > >marginally and is designed for Windows users who can't be bothered to > >learn The Unix Way. > > Actually, as

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:16:45 -0800: > On Saturday 11 March 2006 01:00, Mike McCarty wrote: > > As an example, I'd like to propose that I be able to subscribe > > as a *poster* as [EMAIL PROTECTED], while receiving > > the posts as [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is my

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

Dave Sherohman wrote: Are there things that procmail can do that exim filters can't or is it just a case of procmail being what people have used for years and they're not aware that an alternative is installed by default in Debian? A little bit of both I think. No doubt someone, somewhere

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:05:24PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote: On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:44, Steve Lamb wrote: But the fact that you see an error and work to correct it is good. You have a good point here, and it is important that the point you are making is not overs

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Paul Johnson wrote: Anybody with a wiki can tell you those are bigger spam magnets than open posting could ever dream to be. Even blogs with tracebacks are tough to keep spam free these days. :( -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Paul Johnson wrote: On Saturday 11 March 2006 01:00, Mike McCarty wrote: I'd like to propose a change to subscription protocol used here. I suggest permitting a non-member alias to post messages, while sending the e-mails from the list to the real e-mail address. As an example, I'd like to pro

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Hal Vaughan wrote: On Monday 13 March 2006 03:14, wrote: ... As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to unsubscribe you. So I have not done this. No offense, but you make it sound like you're doing him a favor by not doing it. I'll go one step further: It is "agai

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Yeah,, The rest of the lists (redhat-* or name most others) are stupid and don't want their users to get help from the list. Ritesh -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Proposed-change-for-subscriptions...-t1263446.html#a3442563 Sent from the Debian User forum at Nabbl

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

On Tuesday, 14.03.2006 at 13:05 -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > [...] > > Personally, I agree with Steve that procmail configs look like line > noise and I also wish to echo his question regarding it: Given that > exim is installed on Debian systems by default and that exim has a > much more easil

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Tuesday 14 March 2006 13:41, Steve Lamb wrote: > Anand Kumria wrote: > > As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to > > unsubscribe you. So I have not done this. > > Well, at least you saw reason, sort of. > > > Unfortunately the thread is (still) continuing - so I'v

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:06:28AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > > In fact, if the tone of further emails from you matches this one or > you continue on this topic I'll forcibly assist you in the process. > > Anand > I think this is the first mistake you made in this discussion. Long ago you w

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:05:24PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote: > On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:44, Steve Lamb wrote: > But the fact that you see an error and work to correct it is good. You > have a good point here, and it is important that the point you are > making is not overshadowed by anything e

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:41, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:24:10 -0600 > > "Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > > Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous? > > > > It prevents private repli

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:17, Andrei Popescu wrote: > Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous? http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:08, Chris Metzler wrote: > But one would never guess those two things from the usual tone of your > posts here. In Steve's defense, his tone in this thread is not his usual tone. He's usually one of the friendliest, more helpful personalities this list has to offer.

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 08:54, Steve Lamb wrote: > Good, finally a name to go with this idiocy.  Anand Kumria, clueless list > manager. That's a good way to win hearts and minds: Abuse the person you're trying to convince. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jab

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 12:42, Kent West wrote: > A challenge-response would also be acceptable, provided I can specify > what email to send the challenge to; wouldn't want the challenge to go > to the customer's email from which I'm sending the post, etc. Challenge-response is considered harmful.

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 12:18, Steve Lamb wrote: > Kent West said: > > I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just want > > to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc. > > In those cases would you be willing to post via a webform as proposed > elsewher

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 11:29, Steve Lamb wrote: > We have the list mantainers saying that the list subscribers have to > put up with the junk that gets through because signing up is too hard. Yet > have any of them really thought about making subscribing any easier than > the above? What i

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 08:46, Steve Lamb wrote: > Considering I don't find it a woefully heavy burden to scan headers and > delete subjects that aren't relevant to me (oh, the horror, about 5m a > *day* on this oh so busy list) It makes it harder on me and weakens my own > defense against spam. U

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Saturday 11 March 2006 10:35, Mike McCarty wrote: > I proposed a change in order to prevent such posts. I propose that > messages which come from non-subscribed aliases be rejected from the > list. I didn't state this, but I had in mind that this would be one > of the modifiable characteristics

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Saturday 11 March 2006 01:00, Mike McCarty wrote: > I'd like to propose a change to subscription protocol used here. > I suggest permitting a non-member alias to post messages, while > sending the e-mails from the list to the real e-mail address. > > As an example, I'd like to propose that I be

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Monday 13 March 2006 03:14, Anand Kumria wrote: ... > As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to > unsubscribe you. So I have not done this. No offense, but you make it sound like you're doing him a favor by not doing it. > I've been deliberately not responding in orde

procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0700, s. keeling wrote: > Incoming from Steve Lamb: > > email was. And procmail? Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading > > You don't like procmail. Great. That's no excuse for insulting it. > For some of us, it's a remarkable tool; one we'd rather ab

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Anand Kumria wrote: As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to unsubscribe you. So I have not done this. Well, at least you saw reason, sort of. Unfortunately the thread is (still) continuing - so I've now instituted a 1 day delay for emails on this thread. I'm th

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

s. keeling wrote: Your solution is to knuckle under to the spammers, closing off the lines of communication between Debian Users? Closing off the lines of communication? Uh, no. That would be shutting down the list completely. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm yo

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

s. keeling wrote: "Do one thing, but do it well." That means MTA + MUA + procmail + bogofilter + ..., not Thunderbird which does all/some of that marginally and is designed for Windows users who can't be bothered to learn The Unix Way. Actually, as I have explained many times in the past t

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0700 "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geez, you sound like a Lisp hater. them's fightin' words pilgrim! <\humor> A pgpSBa71V91r0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:14:42PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote: > Now is this > (i) spam as in unsolicited commercial/bulk email, > (ii) noise as in clueless user looking for eg. windows help, > (iii) noise as in clueless linux user "how do I ...", > (iv) noise as in "that was asked and answered

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Steve Lamb wrote: Kent West said: I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the list managers. "He doesn't abuse me, I needed to be punished!" I used it to convey the fact that they are fully capable of closing a hole that spammers use to abuse the list t

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Incoming from Steve Lamb: > Kent West said: > > I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the > > list managers. > > "He doesn't abuse me, I needed to be punished!" I used it to convey the > fact that they are fully capable of closing a hole that spammers use to > ab

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Incoming from Steve Lamb: > Tim Connors said: > > That's a good way to get your bogus opinions across. > > No, that was a way to get my frustration across since the limst managers Your obvious frustration is the only reason why I'm bothering to enter this mess. No offence meant, but you're b

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:14:42PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote: > Now is this > (i) spam as in unsolicited commercial/bulk email, > (ii) noise as in clueless user looking for eg. windows help, > (iii) noise as in clueless linux user "how do I ...", > (iv) noise as in "that was asked and answered

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Steve, how about you propose debian-susubscrbers-only which you would moderate? -- Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain -- To UN

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Dave Sherohman wrote: On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:03:03PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: However, I am still doing the destination sorting via kmail, so I could pick d-u off before it checks the headers SA adds, but I see little or nothing to be gained by that in the real world. But that is on

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:58:32AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Debian is, bar none, the major source of undesired e-mail for me. I just took a look through the debian-user archive for March at http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/ and saw maybe half a dozen spam emails at most. (I did not spend

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On 3/13/06, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Sherohman said: > > You can attempt to convince the listmasters or the project as a whole > > in public without abusing them. (And it would be nice if they also > > replied to you in a calm, levelheaded manner as well...) > > Have I not

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Andrew Vaughan wrote: [snip] Debian is, bar none, the major source of undesired e-mail for me. By far the source is messages like Hi, sexy guy! I'm hot and horney! or UOL SPAM CHALLENGE or Buy Viagra at reduced prices! etc. Now is this (i) spam as in unsolicited commerc

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:09, Steve Lamb wrote: > > You've been around long enough to know how things work. You know the > > project has a policy of open, non-moderated mailing lists. > > Yup. And I've made it well known I think it is a pretty dumb policy > for the reasons stated. > > > You also

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Dave Sherohman said: > You can attempt to convince the listmasters or the project as a whole > in public without abusing them. (And it would be nice if they also > replied to you in a calm, levelheaded manner as well...) Have I not been calm after the initial exchange with Anand? Of course t

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 08:09:08PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > > You also know > > that to change that policy you need to convince either the lists-masters or > > the project as a whole. Abusing the lists-masters on -user won't help. > > Yes, it does. As I told Anand a person who approaches t

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:03:03PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > However, I am still doing the destination sorting via kmail, so I could > pick d-u off before it checks the headers SA adds, but I see little or > nothing to be gained by that in the real world. > > But that is one way I suppose. I

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

> You've been around long enough to know how things work. You know the > project has a policy of open, non-moderated mailing lists. Yup. And I've made it well known I think it is a pretty dumb policy for the reasons stated. > You also know > that to change that policy you need to convince e

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:10, Steve Lamb wrote: > Kent West said: > > I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the > > list managers. > > "He doesn't abuse me, I needed to be punished!" I used it to convey > the fact that they are fully capable of closing a hole that sp

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Kent West said: > I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the > list managers. "He doesn't abuse me, I needed to be punished!" I used it to convey the fact that they are fully capable of closing a hole that spammers use to abuse the list to vector spam into the sub

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Steve Lamb wrote: There are *TWO* parties to that equation and the list managers are abusing the one who has proven their interest and dedication by first off subscribing I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the list managers. -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, em

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:31:51PM -0500, Bob Robertson wrote: > Then *post* to the list with a fake address, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> then wrote: > Don't be an ass by using an actual domain name. This per

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 18:46, Steve Lamb wrote: >Tim Connors said: >> I think it would would work much easier for you to direct all email >> with debian list headers to not go through your filters at all. > >This is both not desirable and not possible. > >While it is possible to skip my Sp

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Tim Connors said: > I think it would would work much easier for you to direct all email > with debian list headers to not go through your filters at all. This is both not desirable and not possible. While it is possible to skip my Spamassassin filters it is not desirable. I could exclude

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

"Steve Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:56:25 -0800 (PST): > Tim Connors said: > > And I get 4 easily > > detected spam/erroneous subscribe messages in one page of headers. > > Since I go through the list with basically my hand on the delete key > > as I watch the subject lines

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:24:10 -0600 "Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous? > > It prevents private replies. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > w

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Matthew R. Dempsky said: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous? > It prevents private replies. As he described it, no, it doesn't prevent them. It makes them inconvenient and the replier may choose to not go thro

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous? It prevents private replies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Matthew R. Dempsky said: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:05:52AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: >> So, please, tell me exactly how a mailing list for (dozens of? >> hundreds of?) thousands of people who relays postings from any any all >> comers is fundimentally different than an open relay? > No one force

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Chris Metzler said: > However, the majority of times you're in disagreement with someone, > out comes the "you're a clueless idiot" card. Someone can disagree > with you without being clueless or stupid. No Chris, it doesn't come out all that often. It comes out when people are being just th

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:39:55 -0600 "Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:31:51PM -0500, Bob Robertson wrote: > > Then *post* to the list with a fake address, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Don't be an ass by using an actual domain name. example.{com,org,net}

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Tim Connors said: > That's a good way to get your bogus opinions across. No, that was a way to get my frustration across since the limst managers pretty much never show themselves on this list, especially when discussions on list policy and procedure crop up. > Steve: a suggestion. Not every

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:06:28 +1100 Anand Kumria wrote: > > In fact, if the tone of further emails from you matches this one or > you continue on this topic I'll forcibly assist you in the process. I don't find Steve's tone particularly constructive either; but this seems way out of line to me. Be

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:05:52AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > So, please, tell me exactly how a mailing list for (dozens of? > hundreds of?) thousands of people who relays postings from any any all > comers is fundimentally different than an open relay? No one forced you to subscribe to debian

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:54:25 -0800: > Anand Kumria wrote: > > It is because the listmasters, of which I am one, > > Good, finally a name to go with this idiocy. Anand Kumria, clueless > list > manager. That's a good way to get your bogus opinions across

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:54:25 -0800 Steve Lamb wrote: > Anand Kumria wrote: >> It is because the listmasters, of which I am one, > > Good, finally a name to go with this idiocy. Anand Kumria, > clueless list manager. The vast majority of the technical information you provide here is spot-on

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Matthew R. Dempsky said: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: >> Get out of your ivory tower and come join us in the bazaar. > Says the man wanting a closed mailing list. There is a difference between a bazaar and a cesspool. -- Steve Lamb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > Get out of your ivory tower and come join us in the bazaar. Says the man wanting a closed mailing list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Tim Connors said: > And I get 4 easily > detected spam/erroneous subscribe messages in one page of headers. > Since I go through the list with basically my hand on the delete key > as I watch the subject lines scroll by anyway, that causes me not very > much noticable pain. From my side it doe

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 11:36 -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > I frequently get email or in-person requests for help from people who > are having trouble with the instructions to either send a message with > "subscribe" as the subject [snip] Not to argue either sides of the argument, but someone who h

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 16:24, Tim Connors wrote: > Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:31:39 -0500: > > In this case, there could be other solutions. For example, where > > do people get the list address? If they find it on Debian web > > pages, it would be possible to s

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:31:39 -0500: > In this case, there could be other solutions. For example, where do > people get the list address? If they find it on Debian web pages, it > would be possible to set up a form with a CGI script to allow > submitting an

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:31:51PM -0500, Bob Robertson wrote: > Then *post* to the list with a fake address, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't be an ass by using an actual domain name. example.{com,org,net} are reserved domain names that would be best for this. Also, if you plan on doing this, s

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:46:38 -0800: > Michael Marsh wrote: > > Because subscribing to the list *is* a barrier, and > > *will* prevent a good number of people from asking their questions. > > No, it isn't. It's called being responsible. > > > Open posting

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

As long as we do not get posters to this list like on the Slackware group where one p'd off guy with a personal grudge flooded it with several hundred messages of utter nonsense for several days every day we should be alright... I hope.

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

There is a simple answer for those who wish to use an "open" forum and yet retain their anonymity. Subscribe to the list (or to the digest) with your real email address. Then *post* to the list with a fake address, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find the "identity" field in Kmail to be perfect for

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Steve Lamb wrote: Kent West said: I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just want to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc. In those cases would you be willing to post via a webform as proposed elsewhere in this thread? Yeah, I thin

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 15:18, Steve Lamb wrote: >Kent West said: >> I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just >> want to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc. > >In those cases would you be willing to post via a webform as > proposed elsewhere in

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Carl Fink wrote: On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 08:54:25AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: Anand Kumria wrote: It is because the listmasters, of which I am one, Good, finally a name to go with this idiocy. Anand Kumria, clueless list manager. Steve Lamb, abusive and unhelpful j

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Kent West said: > I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just want > to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc. In those cases would you be willing to post via a webform as proposed elsewhere in this thread? -- Steve Lamb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:44, Steve Lamb wrote: > Hal Vaughan said: > > What concerns me is that Steve has some good points, but Anand is > > too busy being right to listen. (I have to admit, Steve has been > > rather strong in voicing his complaints.) > > I admit I react poorly to certain be

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Steve Lamb wrote: Kent West said: issues, ranging from Debian issues to Windows to Maytag washer repair issues, and have come upon the "To submit your question, you must register first." But we're not talking registration. We're talking subscription. Registration to me means fill

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Hal Vaughan said: > What concerns me is that Steve has some good points, but Anand is too > busy being right to listen. (I have to admit, Steve has been rather > strong in voicing his complaints.) I admit I react poorly to certain behaviors. I am sorry for that and do try to reign myself in.

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:15, Kent West wrote: > Steve Lamb wrote: > >Anand Kumria said: > Open posting is *good*. Yes, I get spam because of it, > > Just from the viewpoint of an average Joe, who has no experience > running email lists, I DESPISE, HATE, DETEST having to subscribe to a > list

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Kent West said: > issues, ranging from Debian issues to Windows to Maytag washer repair > issues, and have come upon the "To submit your question, you must > register first." But we're not talking registration. We're talking subscription. Registration to me means filling out a form with your

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Anand Kumria said: > You can see who all the listmasters are at > . What, not on lists.debian.org? One would think that such information would be coupled with the list site as well as the general site. > You are also free to appeal to Debian technic

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Steve Lamb wrote: Anand Kumria said: Open posting is *good*. Yes, I get spam because of it, Just from the viewpoint of an average Joe, who has no experience running email lists, I DESPISE, HATE, DETEST having to subscribe to a list just to ask a quick question. Many times I've lo

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

Michael Marsh said: > I have an email address. I make it available online so that people > who need to contact me can. This is good. However, it means that I > also get spam. > If you find that contradictory, then why do you (a) have an email > address, and (b) send email to a list that archive

  1   2   >