[Theforum] quick change

Michele Foster michele at wordpro.on.ca
Wed May 8 17:15:31 CDT 2002


Jeff,

----- Original Message -----
From: ".jeff" <jeff at members.evolt.org>


| michele,
|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > From: Michele Foster
| >
| >
| > First of all, ALL of Admin used to have the task to
| > administer thelist.  This is before and after the
| > Austin trip last year.  Take a wild guess how many
| > and which individuals actually DID the tasks?  (Dan
| > of course could provide the answer for sure, but I'll
| > say 4 as a pretty good bet.)  Now, why was that?
| > Definitely not because the other 16 Admins at the
| > time didn't have access.  No, it was because they
| > didn't bother, or they figured other people were
| > looking after it.  Ok, that's fine, fair assessment,
| > since there *were* other individuals looking after
| > the tasks.
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| in all fairness, that's an inaccurate assessment.  not everyone had access
| by virtue of membership to the admin list.  that access had been removed
| from individuals *long* before austin.  if the admin archives were still
| available i could point to happenings on thelist that prompted requests
for
| help on admin by admins to admins with thelist admin access (enough
"admin"
| in one sentence for ya).

No, you missed one or two instances.  :)

Seriously tho, based on comments from Martin and McCreath it sounds like I
was misinformed... wasn't my intention to mislead.

|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Before Dan introduced the HTML auto-converted messages,
| > on average there were anywhere from 6 to 20 HTML emails
| > that used to come through the system on a daily basis.
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| the issue is *not* about the feature that converts html email (though
there
| are some new annoyances introduced with that feature).

<snipped the issue is *not* .. ;) >

Yes, I realize the issue is not about individual features that are within
MG.  I wanted to point out for everyone's benefit what those features were
that were added to MG, why they were added, and how Dan's continued to
improve upon those features as best as he can.  I also wanted to point out
that Dan *was* listening to the membership and continuing to make
modifications as requested.


| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Also within the list management are keywords and email
| > addresses which are held for approval.  Most of the
| > time all the offending messages get caught and are not
| > forwarded to thelist.  Unfortunately, the keywords from
| > yesterday's email weren't in the phrase list.  [...]
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| and sadly, that'll always be the case.
|
| filtering based on keywords or phrases is reactive, not proactive.  that
| means you can only fix the problem if one has been presented.  the only
| solution that will truly work is to prevent messages from non-subbed
| addresses.


True, but I wasn't talking just about that.  It could have been worse.  The
attachment the person sent could have gotten through too.  That would have
been far more embarrassing to accidentally open at work.  But I get your
point and I know what you are saying.

|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Interestingly enough though, no one's brought up the
| > point that ANYONE can subscribe to thelist, send out a
| > message, then be unsubscribed either on their own or by
| > an administrator.
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| agreed.  however, that's  not something that's going to be done by a
| spambot.  it's going to be done by an individual who'll have to give a
valid
| address.

I'm not versed on the workings of spambots, so I'll have to defer to you and
others on that particular point.  I was, however, referring to actual
individuals subscribing themselves.

|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Does anyone really think that we won't see ANY spam from
| > now on just because we've locked thelist down to
| > subscribers only?
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| no, i don't think anybody thinks it will stop all spam.  however, it will
| prevent the spam sent by people who have thelist address in their catalog
of
| "one million targeted and verified email addreses".

hehe .. unless they are subbed ;)

<snipped>

|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Did you not care that it would affect many members, not
| > just a few as Adrian has continuously forced down our
| > throats to believe?
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| no one has come forward with any information to the contrary.  therefore,
| why would there be any reason to think it'd more anything more than a few
| members?

| it's not about caring if members would be affected.  it's about caring
that
| some members are affected by the current situation.  it came down to
| weighing which effect was worse.  subscribe-only posting won out over
| convenience of posting from any address.
|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Adrian do *you* know the number of individuals affected?
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| does *anybody* know the number of individuals affected?
|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Do *you* know how many list members would post from many
| > different accounts?
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| does anybody?


The above is true on both sides of the fence.   To the best of my knowledge,
Dan's never provided the actual figures on how many members will be
affected.  I'm not sure he even knows except to generalize.  But since he's
been admining thelist for the past three years, I still think he should have
been given more "respect" (for lack of a better word) and understanding that
he knows what he's talking about.

To copy and paste another example from our offlist discussion .. it doesn't
require a response  :)

If someone tells you to do something on weo that you know for a fact will
cause many other users not to be able to use the site in NS browsers or
preIE5 browsers, are you going to do it just because many want it?  Or are
you going to argue your case ad infinitum because you KNOW what you are
talking about is correct ?

After months of pressure Dan decided not to continue defending his case ..
doesn't make his opinion any less of value as far as I'm concerned tho.


|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Do *you* know how many list members/users wanted the
| > ability to post from wherever when they were having a
| > quick problem and to be able to read the archives to
| > get the help they needed?
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| a counter to your question -- do you know how many members are even aware
| that they can post from a non-subbed address?  the reason i ask is because
| most discussion lists are setup to only allow posts from subbed addresses
| for the very reasons we've now closed our lists.  so, i honestly don't
think
| most users knew they could do that.

Good question.  I dunno the answer.  I remember it being a part of the
standard response to questions posted in error to the contact form.  i.e.
sub to the list or send your question and read the archives.  That's not
really happening that I'm aware of anymore.


| even if they did, with posting limited to subbed addresses only, it's a
| fairly simple matter of posting from wherever you are.  either get a free
| email account and sub that when you're away from your own computer or use
of
| the many webmail sites out there to log in to your own email account
that's
| subbed to thelist and post from there.

Yeah one could do that.

|
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > How are you (Adrian .. or we, evolt.org) going to have
| > any kind of idea how many list subscribers there really
| > are?  How in the world are we (evolt.org) ever going to
| > hope to match those addresses with a userID on weo?
| > User authentication for ueue was going to be difficult
| > enough, now its going to be damn near impossible.
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| in all fairness, this isn't even a reasonable issue to bring up for
several
| reasons:
|
| 1)  ueue is only a theory.  there's nothing
|     implemented or even being worked on at the
|     moment as far as i can tell
| 2)  before yesterday we didn't really know how
|     many thelist subscribers there were.
|     yesterday's change doesn't affect that
| 3)  before yesterday we couldn't match the
|     subscribed addresses to weo userid's.
|     again, yesterday's change doesn't affect
|     that either.
| 4)  user authentication for ueue was already
|     damn near impossible.  that's why we only
|     have theoretical solutions.

While I appreciate that you have a much better understanding on the ueue
situation than I do, I still think we've created a situation that makes it
far worse and near impossible to ever hope in matching a userID with a weo
ID.  I know we've talked about ueue many times over the past six months.
And I'm well aware of the fact at how difficult it was going to be to
implement.  All I'm saying is that by changing thelist to subscribers only,
we'll end up with many more duplicate email addresses that in reality equate
to one user on weo.

Somehow I don't think it's just me that wants and has in the past posted
from other email addresses than the one I'm subbed with.  I'm also certain
it's not just Matt's outgoing ISP that changes his "from" address to a
format which MG will say he's not subsribed.  In fact, my old ISP and now my
current one insisted on me using their outgoing mail servers instead of my
own.  (Thankfully they've messed something up so I'm still able to use my
own at the moment ;)

<more snipping .. dinner time now ;) >


| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
| > Anyway, I've said more than enough.  If you've managed
| > to read to the end of this message, congrats, have a
| > beer on me.
| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
|
| i've eaten three guinness so far this morning.  i'll send ya a bill.
|


You were cut-off about 3 a.m. Friday/Saturday and I've got the pic to prove
it too ;)


Mich




More information about the theforum mailing list
https://lists.evolt.org/theforumarchive/Week-of-Mon-20020506/004519.html
lists.evolt.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-26
19522
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KHFLGQLIIXZD45LNHOFJGCPBLN7R3EEU
<urn:uuid:844430ad-bf06-40ae-9c10-00b1e24cf5dc>
2019-06-25T19:45:07Z
198.199.71.69
text/html
sha1:HMZ6QVSQRQNXOVN63PXEWNH5SBRVN5OR
<urn:uuid:e1e9d9b4-02d2-4862-9c67-eb18cdbda504>
https://lists.evolt.org/theforumarchive/Week-of-Mon-20020506/004519.html
response
<urn:uuid:19316012-c67f-4726-8f13-669c9c9b5643>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-138-121-10.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/