From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/46028 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Scott A Crosby Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: TMDA (was: new spam functionality added) Date: 06 Aug 2002 08:20:12 -0500 Organization: Rice University Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87y9brejam.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> <873ctztyth.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> <20020801222925.A10502@mastaler.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028640100 19276 127.0.0.1 (6 Aug 2002 13:21:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:21:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17c4HL-00050n-00 for ; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 15:21:39 +0200 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 17c4GM-0002pe-00; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 08:20:38 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 06 Aug 2002 08:21:05 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA22737 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:20:47 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 14881 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2002 13:20:14 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 14876 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2002 13:20:14 -0000 Original-Received: from cs.rice.edu (128.42.1.30) by gnus.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 2002 13:20:14 -0000 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FD94AA69; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:20:13 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sam.cs.rice.edu (sam.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.145]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C134AA20; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:20:13 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sam.cs.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 14314) id BA878739E5; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:20:12 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: Per Abrahamsen In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 56 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020300 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46028 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46028 On Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:10:34 +0200, Per Abrahamsen writes: > Scott A Crosby writes: > > > However, if you (purposely or inadvertently) *hide* the fact that you > > use TMDA. Then you're exploiting the fact that most people will > > respond out of a psychological need to not feel like they wasted their > > time. Many people will spend an extra 10 seconds to avoid having their > > email deleted unread (and thus wasting the results of several minutes > > work). > > It is still *their* choice. I have no obligation to read any email > send to me. By not using TMDA, I make it *my* choice, by > accidentially junking their messages. By using TMDA, it become > *their* choice. I do not care for what *their* reasons will be for > making *their* choice. > So, why not give them the choice when you send messages out? By informing them that you use TMDA, it is their choice whether to respond to your origional message. They may then priortize their time as they choose.[1] > I no, I have no intension of munging my headers or signature in order > to accomodate the people who believe that their message is worth > several minuttes of their time to write, but not an additional 10 > seconds to ensure it is read. These people have a problem I refuse to > make mine, or force on third parties by munging headers. You are more than willing to place your problem upon others with robot-reply messages. Why not advertise that fact? That way you not only get messages from people willing to reply to your robot, but the only people who will ever write to you are those who are aware of the invconvenience, and willing to accept it in order to talk to you? This is the best of both worlds. I, and everyone else, gets to prioritize my time and avoid unwanted inconvenience. And you only get messages from people who are willing to accept the inconvenience to talk to you. So, why hide your use of TMDA? IMHO, having TMDA advertise itself sounds like an excellent feature. Furthermore, I suspect that it would alleviate many of the complaints about it. When people send an email, they don't like having an unsolicited robot-reply; with this feature, they'll know to expect it. Scott [1] In my case, away from being inconvenienced by robot-reply messages. However, others may consider this professionalism and be more likely to read such messages.