Re: Subscribers only

Re: Subscribers only

[Joakim Ryden]

John Buttery wrote:
=>   If we're being blunt, what it boils down to is doing whatever it is
=> that keeps the admins happy.  If people are going around creating and
=> supporting an outstanding piece of software for me, for free, I
=> certainly am all in favor of having their tools work the way _they_ want
=> them to.  Compared to that, you, me, and Joe Schmoe can all bug off.  :) 

Oh don't get me wrong - I'm all for supporting zsh and its developers, it's
close to the best thing since sliced bread. I'm merely suggesting that
people might have more creative ideas for how to provide that support than
having their inboxes filled with SPAM and viruses. But then I could be
wrong of course. :)

--Jo

Re: Subscribers only

[seth]

Let's wait until the list folks have their filtering back on line; then we can
make a judgement.  I suspect that the problem will mostly go away.  I have my
list software configured to block all of these problem emails, and there is no
reason to think that the list won't be back to normal soon.

Let's wait until we see if there is still a problem before restricting the
list.  My 2 cents, of course; I'm a member so members only won't impact me
personally.

On 17-Jan-2003 Joakim Ryden wrote:
> John Buttery wrote:
> =>   If we're being blunt, what it boils down to is doing whatever it is
> => that keeps the admins happy.  If people are going around creating and
> => supporting an outstanding piece of software for me, for free, I
> => certainly am all in favor of having their tools work the way _they_ want
> => them to.  Compared to that, you, me, and Joe Schmoe can all bug off.  :) 
> 
> Oh don't get me wrong - I'm all for supporting zsh and its developers, it's
> close to the best thing since sliced bread. I'm merely suggesting that
> people might have more creative ideas for how to provide that support than
> having their inboxes filled with SPAM and viruses. But then I could be
> wrong of course. :)
> 
> --Jo

----------------------------------
E-Mail: seth@cql.com
Date: 16-Jan-2003
Time: 21:32:24

This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------

Re: Subscribers only

[Le Wang]

 --- Joakim Ryden <jryden@forumone.com> wrote: > John
I'm
> merely suggesting that
> people might have more creative ideas for how to
> provide that support than
> having their inboxes filled with SPAM and viruses.
> But then I could be
> wrong of course. :)

Are open/closed our only options?  I've heard talk of
a confirmation process for non-subscribers.  That
sounds very interesting.

In an ideal world a non-subscriber would get something
like this when he posts:

<fakeMessage>
Hi <name>,

Thanks for your interest in our list.  We welcome and
value your input.  If you use ZSh often, we suggest
you subscribe (see below) to our list to maximize your
enjoyment of the "ZSh" experience.

You have four options to proceed with your post:

1.  Do nothing.  And your post will be cancelled.

2.  Click <link name="here"/> to proceed with your
post and subscribe to our list.

3.  Click <link name="here"/> to proceed with your
post and receive responses to this thread (or
subthread) for the next 7 days.

4.  Click <link name="here"/> to proceed with your
post  and do nothing else.

Thanks,
<link name="zsh-users"> Maintainers

</fakeMessage>

Would something like this be too difficult to
implement?

--
Le

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: Subscribers only

[Clemens Fischer]

Le Wang <lewang@yahoo.com>:

> Are open/closed our only options?  I've heard talk of
> a confirmation process for non-subscribers.  That
> sounds very interesting.
>
> In an ideal world a non-subscriber would get something
> like this when he posts:
>
> <fakeMessage>
> (four options)
> </fakeMessage>

this can be made simpler.  eg. i read and post to this list via
gmane.org, which is a NNTP/mailing-list gateway.  using the simple
fact that no spammer ever uses a real from-address, posters to a list
get a message from "your friendly authorizer" on gmane which they
have to answer to.  then held posts go through.

  clemens

Subscribers only

[Mads Martin Joergensen]

How about contemplating makes the zsh lists $subject?

-- 
Mads Martin Jørgensen, http://mmj.dk
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
 and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
                                -- A. P. J.

Re: Subscribers only

[John Buttery]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 535 bytes --]

* Mads Martin Joergensen <mmj@suse.de> [2003-01-13 20:24:20 +0100]:
> How about contemplating makes the zsh lists $subject?

  IIRC, this and some other issues are left alone because the list
maintainers don't have control of the machine where the list is running
to make such changes?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John Buttery
                                     (Web page temporarily unavailable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Subscribers only

[Mads Martin Joergensen]

* John Buttery <john@io.com> [Jan 14. 2003 05:08]:
> * Mads Martin Joergensen <mmj@suse.de> [2003-01-13 20:24:20 +0100]:
> > How about contemplating makes the zsh lists $subject?
> 
>   IIRC, this and some other issues are left alone because the list
> maintainers don't have control of the machine where the list is running
> to make such changes?

Well, I talked to them, and they'll make it subscribers only if we want
to. They'll also reenable spamassassin again when they fix it--it ran
out of control and 'exploded' some time ago.

-- 
Mads Martin Jørgensen, http://mmj.dk
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
 and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
                                -- A. P. J.

Re: Subscribers only

[Peter Stephenson]

Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
> Well, I talked to them, and they'll make it subscribers only if we want
> to. They'll also reenable spamassassin again when they fix it--it ran
> out of control and 'exploded' some time ago.

I think the latter would be a better fix.  It could run at quite a high
level of protection --- unlike normal email, with a mailing list you
can tell if your mail didn't make it.  (In the event of subject lines
like `Zsh problem with pictures of celebrities taking human growth
hormone', or whatever.)

We don't really want to make zsh-workers a closed list, since that's
where we receive bug reports, and this way we can discuss them live
instead of trawling through a list.  This has proved a very useful way
of working.

Although it's less crucial, I don't think we want to close zsh-users,
either, since it's annoying to have to subscribe to a list just to ask
one simple query.  The people who bother to ask questions on the list,
even if they're not members, are often the ones who are able to spot
infelicities in the shell or in the documentation.  At a pinch, they
could still post to zsh-workers, I suppose, so this is an option.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: Subscribers only

[Vincent Lefevre]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 14:56:09 +0000, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
> > Well, I talked to them, and they'll make it subscribers only if we want
> > to. They'll also reenable spamassassin again when they fix it--it ran
> > out of control and 'exploded' some time ago.
> 
> I think the latter would be a better fix.

I agree. For some reasons, users like me may post with a different
address than the subscription one.

> It could run at quite a high level of protection --- unlike normal
> email, with a mailing list you can tell if your mail didn't make it.
> (In the event of subject lines like `Zsh problem with pictures of
> celebrities taking human growth hormone', or whatever.)

If there is a problem to choose the level of protection, there could
be a white list (common to both mailing-lists) of subscribers / known
posters. And if possible, what about a confirmation request for
ambiguous messages...?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100%
validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International
des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA

Re: Subscribers only

[Joakim Ryden]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:56:09PM +0000, Peter Stephenson wrote:
=> Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
=> > Well, I talked to them, and they'll make it subscribers only if we want
=> > to. They'll also reenable spamassassin again when they fix it--it ran
=> > out of control and 'exploded' some time ago.
=> 
=> I think the latter would be a better fix.  It could run at quite a high
=> level of protection --- unlike normal email, with a mailing list you
=> can tell if your mail didn't make it.  (In the event of subject lines
=> like `Zsh problem with pictures of celebrities taking human growth
=> hormone', or whatever.)
=> 
=> We don't really want to make zsh-workers a closed list, since that's
=> where we receive bug reports, and this way we can discuss them live
=> instead of trawling through a list.  This has proved a very useful way
=> of working.
=> 
=> Although it's less crucial, I don't think we want to close zsh-users,
=> either, since it's annoying to have to subscribe to a list just to ask
=> one simple query.  The people who bother to ask questions on the list,
=> even if they're not members, are often the ones who are able to spot
=> infelicities in the shell or in the documentation.  At a pinch, they
=> could still post to zsh-workers, I suppose, so this is an option.

I think to be a little blunt about it it boils down to.. which is more
important, keeping the loyal users who are actually subscribed and asking
not to receive a bunch of silly SPAM or making sure that Joe Schmoe can 
post freely?

I've enjoyed this list a great deal - I think there are some really cool
and some extremely smart people on here. But alas, I'm unsubscribing myself
and will resort to browse whatever archives on occasion instead.

--Jo

Re: Subscribers only

[John Buttery]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 910 bytes --]

* Joakim Ryden <jryden@forumone.com> [2003-01-14 12:44:36 -0500]:
> I think to be a little blunt about it it boils down to.. which is more
> important, keeping the loyal users who are actually subscribed and
> asking not to receive a bunch of silly SPAM or making sure that Joe
> Schmoe can post freely?

  If we're being blunt, what it boils down to is doing whatever it is
that keeps the admins happy.  If people are going around creating and
supporting an outstanding piece of software for me, for free, I
certainly am all in favor of having their tools work the way _they_ want
them to.  Compared to that, you, me, and Joe Schmoe can all bug off.  :) 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John Buttery
                                     (Web page temporarily unavailable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: Subscribers only

[Borzenkov Andrey]

> 
> Although it's less crucial, I don't think we want to close zsh-users,
> either, since it's annoying to have to subscribe to a list just to ask
> one simple query.  The people who bother to ask questions on the list,
> even if they're not members, are often the ones who are able to spot
> infelicities in the shell or in the documentation.  At a pinch, they
> could still post to zsh-workers, I suppose, so this is an option.
> 

I prefer lists which request confirmation before actually posting. This way
I am not forced to subscribe just because I want to post a single bug report
but still am able to do it freely.

-andrey

Re: Subscribers only

[Roman Neuhauser]

# mmj@suse.de / 2003-01-14 15:42:19 +0100:
> * John Buttery <john@io.com> [Jan 14. 2003 05:08]:
> > * Mads Martin Joergensen <mmj@suse.de> [2003-01-13 20:24:20 +0100]:
> > > How about contemplating makes the zsh lists $subject?
> > 
> >   IIRC, this and some other issues are left alone because the list
> > maintainers don't have control of the machine where the list is running
> > to make such changes?
> 
> Well, I talked to them, and they'll make it subscribers only if we want
> to. They'll also reenable spamassassin again when they fix it--it ran
> out of control and 'exploded' some time ago.

    and while they're at the fixing, how about
    <20030112144512.GA1196@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> sent to users@ two
    days ago?

    something like DJB's qsecretary or TMDA could help as well.

-- 
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message.    see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html

Re: Subscribers only

[Paul Ackersviller]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:42:19PM +0100, Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
> * John Buttery <john@io.com> [Jan 14. 2003 05:08]:
> > 
> >   IIRC, this and some other issues are left alone because the list
> > maintainers don't have control of the machine where the list is running
> > to make such changes?
> 
> Well, I talked to them, and they'll make it subscribers only if we want
> to. They'll also reenable spamassassin again when they fix it--it ran
> out of control and 'exploded' some time ago.

Does anyone know whether bogofilter has been considered?  I've been
using both it and spamassassin for a few months and getting far
superior results from bogofilter (but it does require some training
before identifying anything at all).  It's also reputed to be much
faster, although I haven't tried comparing speeds.  A number of people
on the spamassassin list running high volume servers have complained
about its resource usage.

-- 
Paul Ackersviller