[MLB-WIRELESS] Fw: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) ( anyone else get this? )

[Toliman]

At 01:56 PM 14/01/2003, Craig Sanders wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:06:25PM +1100, Toliman wrote:
> > but sending 40 messages in an hour, and having to modify the email
> > address for every single reply is just fucking tedious.
>
>so use a decent fucking mail client.  simple.  problem solved.  in fact,
>there ISN'T a problem - the "problem" only exists for those who refuse
>to use a decent mail client.

ok, name a "decent" fucking email client.

preferably one that has been developed and/or updated this century, has 
multiple platform support, and has an easy-to-use interface, and is RFC 
standards compliant, if that helps narrow the list down. or we could all 
manage the hundreds of replies using awk and sendmail. also, if you were 
wondering, AIX/VMS is not quite valid as a "multiple platform" selection.


>this is the prime example of lame rebuttals that conveniently ignore
>crucial points because they have no answer to them.

what crucial points? i started reading the 14 pages of contention and 
promptly fell asleep reading the pretentious and fallacious arguments. 
there is a lot of reasoning on the page that simply does not provide a 
valid conclusion, one that weighs both sides evenly.

the arguments are heavily one-sided and any opposing view is given very 
short shrift. the so-called "lame rebuttal" is necessary for validation, 
the original site has not made that conclusion valid. that is why it is 
currently being ignored by the majority of other mail-server 
administrators, the points made are too one-sided and independent to make 
the conclusions that he wants to make.

i.e. it's a very long RANT.

> > >>I don't understand why this is bad... it is an email list. what
> > >>reason would someone want to preserve the reply-to from a list?
> >
> > i can imagine, it's to include the humourous and often funny crap that
> > people modify and include as their reply to addresses such as this
> > lovely unsolicited email i got from another mailing list:
>
>no, to use a current example, it's to preserve useful address like:
>
>Reply-To: bchild at wireless.org.au

that's not a valid point ... validating your theory by providing a kludge 
as proof is fallacious reasoning.

nobody cares if replies go to a different address than the one they 
subscribed with. except perhaps the one person who modifies their reply-to 
header. with your reasoning as to the necessity of the reply-to header, a 
less-than-honest user could subscribe to a list, engineer a false email 
address or falsify their email address information, redirect their replies 
to another person, who is unsubscribed, banned, or sending unsolicited 
messages and derogatory/illegal postings.

I'd prefer to belong to a list where only subscribed users send and receive 
the emails sent to the list. With a custom reply-to header, that is not 
possible. That is my "prime reason" for munging, and one that i have seen 
working for lists which do implement reply-to munging, with thousands of 
subscribed members interchanging posts with a 5 second turnaround, instead 
of the 3-7 minute turnaround on the M-W list.

that's all unnecessary information. a list is either a hive of interaction 
that has it's own dynamic, or it's an unclean, tedious nuisance to post and 
reply to posters individually. irregardless of the "decent fucking email" 
client or the dictatorial meanderings of the mail administrator who does 
things differently and believes you should follow his footsteps.

the option of "reply-to" munging and a strict Non-RFC mailer daemon policy 
on posting can stop those problems. cold. it also makes subscribers feel as 
if the email is from the list, rather than from the person directly, which 
has a psychological impact on the type of reply being sent.

the corollary, most people care if they have to reply to a list manually to 
engender the support of broken methodology to feed the ego of a mail-server 
administrator who doesn't like to conform to the popular norm.


> > those people who rule servers rarely are forced to be democratic or
>                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
> > analytical about their choices, their inability to appreciate the
>
>now i know you're clueless.
>
>technology is not a democracy.  things either work or they don't,
>voting about it doesn't change that.
>
>it sounds like you're one of those mediocrity-fascists who think that
>everyone's opinion is equally valid on every topic, regardless of what
>experience or knowledge or skill they might have in the subject being
>discussed.
>
>sorry but, e.g., if i'm discussing nuclear physics, i'm going to rate
>the opinion of someone who works or researches in the field a lot higher
>than the opinion of any joe-blow off the street.
>
>same with mail servers, mail clients, and mailing lists.  the opinions
>of those who work with and/or develop the technology every day are worth
>more than the opinions of some random user.

and this illustrates perfectly why nobody listens to you.

> > >i've run many hundreds of mailing lists over the years.  i'm currently
> > >responsible for over 250 of them.  the single most common cause of
> > >mailing-list loops is the combination of Reply-To header munging and a
> > >subscriber on a broken NT mail server.
> >
> > uhuh ... have you run one recently?
>
>yes, i run hundreds of lists at the moment.
>
>what part of "i'm currently responsible for over 250 of them" is
>difficult to understand?

this is yet also another example of why nobody listens to you.


Toliman.


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message