Recently set up a thriving list with SmartList and the crew is very eager for the list name to be appended to the beginning of every subject for sorting reasons.. I believe I've seen majorDomo do this.. Reasonably simple task, except to do it right I think you'd want to parse the subject to make sure it wasn't a reply with the list name string already in place...
Can smart list do something like that, and if so how?
thanks! -frz
Franz Maruna [franz@elementri.com] wrote:
Recently set up a thriving list with SmartList and the crew is very eager for the list name to be appended to the beginning of every subject for sorting reasons.. I believe I've seen majorDomo do this.. Reasonably simple task, except to do it right I think you'd want to parse the subject to make sure it wasn't a reply with the list name string already in place...
Can smart list do something like that, and if so how?
http://www.hartzler.net/smartlist/SmartList-FAQ.html#Section_8.3
-Steve
At 3:00 PM -0400 10/24/00, Franz Maruna is rumored to have typed:
Recently set up a thriving list with SmartList and the crew is very eager for the list name to be appended to the beginning of every subject for sorting reasons..
1) See the FAQ - complete instructions are there.
2) This is _completely_ unnecessary and a titanic waste of time, energy, and bandwidth, since any email client worth its salt can easily sort on the X-Mailing-List: header field, or a bunch of other unique fields in any specific mailing list. Munging the subject is just plain silly - tell your "thriving" subscribers to RTFM of their email client software to learn how to use the filters they already have available, and then explain that you will not be changing what other people write unnecessarily and thereby make your mailing list look like an amateur-operated Topica or eGroups list.
Charlie (who considers this one of his major pet peeves)
Recently set up a thriving list with SmartList and the crew is very eager for the list name to be appended to the beginning of every subject for sorting reasons.. I believe I've seen majorDomo do this.. Reasonably
simple
task, except to do it right I think you'd want to parse the subject to
make
sure it wasn't a reply with the list name string already in place...
I don't care why you would want this. I think it is good for you you try to figure it out instead of demanding something from the subscribers.
Here's how:
1) In rc.custom, uncomment this line: RC_LOCAL_SUBMIT_10 = rc.local.s10
2) Create a file called rc.local.s10, and put in it the following (I asume your list is called "JUSTHELPIFYOUCAN"): SUBJ=`formail -zx Subject:` :0fw * ! ^Subject: [JUSTHELPIFYOUCAN].* * ! ^Subject: Re: .* | formail -I "Subject: [JUSTHELPIFYOUCAN] $SUBJ"
That's it. just play around. The 2 lines starting with an asterisk are expressions that match the current subject line: only if the subject does not match those two lines (allready starting with the listname or being a reply), the listname is added. I'm not entirely sure those expressions are correct. So if not: could someone else please react (no need to tell me I should not want to do this).
Regards, Jelmer
[BTW: My mails don't seem to go to the list anymore. Don't know why]
At 5:32 PM -0400 10/24/00, Jelmer Jellema is rumored to have typed:
I don't care why you would want this. I think it is good for you you try to figure it out instead of demanding something from the subscribers.
This is targeted to the other subscribers of the list; Mr. Jellema is rather well-known for taking the exact opposite side of pretty much anything I say, transmitting personal mail (sent privately) out-of-context to the mailing list without permission, and bombarding my mailbox with impolite and juvenile email to the extent of forcing me to block his rants on the sendmail level. I really don't expect him to pay any attention, and am honestly not concerned that he doesn't. I am concerned about clarifying my position to those more reasonable subscribers who are considering screwing around with this, in the hopes this nonsense can be avoided.
For the record, I don't suggest anyone "demand" anything from their subscribers that shouldn't be expected in the first place. I mean, isn't it reasonable to ask people to understand their email client software? Is it too much to ask that someone actually check their manual for instructions on how to sort their email? Look, the only reason people ask for subject munging is because they _think_ that's the only way to sort their mail. They are (mostly) wrong; what's wrong with politely telling them that?
To more clearly explain my position on munging (pretty much anything), from the point of view of a poster, I don't think a list owner has the _right_ to munge anything _I_ type, subject or body. (A listowner is welcomed to munge anything I _don't;_ other automated header fields like old Received: headers, etc. I would even go so far as to applaud a listowner who removed those annoying free-email signatures from the bottom of the body, since it isn't something the poster controls - so long as the listowner is anal enough in his/her recipies to make _sure_ they don't accidentally remove anything the poster writes.) You certainly wouldn't suggest changing anything in the body, now would you? Maybe replacing every instance of one political candadate's name with another, for example? What gives you (the emperical you, not the reader in particular) the right to change the subject for _no purpose?_ Again, since anyone with a reasonable client (ok, so Mail can't do this automatically...know anyone who uses Mail as their main email client?) can filter on just about _anything_ (I'm using an old 3.1 version of Eudora, and it can filter on the _body_ for goodness sake, let alone every conceivable header field!), why do we need to pander to people too lazy to spend a few moments reading the manual or help file that came with their software?
(The same argument, I believe, applies to munging the Reply-To header; people don't know how to Reply-To-All, so they whine and complain that their replies don't go to the list, and demand we munge the Reply-To header. It's just nuts, since by RTFM they could easily figure out how painfully simple this is, and protect themselves from inadvertant personal messages going to thousands of people.)
Look, if you want to munge your subject, knock yourself out. Heck, if you want to alter people's body text, you're welcomed to do so (I just won't subscribe to your list). Just realize that you are doing it _unnecessarily,_ and are going through a lot of work for _no purpose_ other than you have clueless subscribers who should be educated and not coddled. You aren't solving a problem, since none exists. Bottom line: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
And since this is all covered clearly in the FAQ anyway, going round and round about it is a complete waste of time.
[BTW: My mails don't seem to go to the list anymore. Don't know why]
Obviously incorrect.
Charlie
The problem ofcause is that all the people on this list want answers to their questions, no flames about how they should manage their lists or react to requests of their users. Is it so hard to understand they can make there own decisions and just want solutions to the problems they have implementing them?
If the question would have been: "should I add something to the subject", your answer would have been correct.
BTW: I looked around in outlook express and don't seem to be able to filter on X- headers. This is very popular software.
Never forget: the client does not want to read a manual, they want it to work. You (emperical) are there to make sure they can.
Jelmer
----------------------------------------------------------- Drs. Jelmer Jellema - Spin in het Web www.spininhetweb.com Spin in het Web geeft internet inhoud ------------------------------------------------------------- Spin in het Web is de producent van: www.visinhetnet.nl: Niet Het Laatste Nieuws www.irritantman.nl: Irritant Man! - Reden tot Klagen
Remember that we're in the Microsoft era. I just checked -- Netscape 4.0+ will filter on body, but not arbitrary headers -- it's subject/sender/body/priority/date/status/to/CC/to or CC/age in days or nothing. Outlook and its derivatives are similar. Since these account for a huge fraction (I'd estimate over 75%) of the clients being used by people today, the problem being solved by the recipe is a real one.
Charlie Summers wrote:
Again, since anyone with a reasonable client (ok, so Mail can't do this automatically...know anyone who uses Mail as their main email client?) can filter on just about _anything_ (I'm using an old 3.1 version of Eudora, and it can filter on the _body_ for goodness sake, let alone every conceivable header field!), why do we need to pander to people too lazy to spend a few moments reading the manual or help file that came with their software?
ZENIT News Agency wrote:
Remember that we're in the Microsoft era. I just checked -- Netscape 4.0+ will filter on body, but not arbitrary headers -- it's subject/sender/body/priority/date/status/to/CC/to or CC/age in days or nothing.
Incorrect. If you select "Message Filters..."
then select "New..."
The select "Advanced..."
You can add any type of header information to filter against in Netscape. I do it all the time. I don't use Outlook so I can't speak to it.
Michael Hess wrote,
| You can add any type of header information to filter against in Netscape. | I do it all the time. I don't use Outlook so I can't speak to it.
I don't know about full Outlook, but Outlook Express cannot. Then again, Netscape doesn't allow a person to use or poll more than one POP3 address without switching identities, and that's a bigger pain for me than limited filtering. For mail where I need more sophisticated filtering, I direct to shell accounts where I can run procmail.
I do agree with Charlie Summers about tagging subjects; I belong to some lists that do that, and it's so annoying that I have formail remove the tags. The practice is actually dangerous: if you send a private reply to another member and forget to rewrite the subject without the tag, the other person receives a message with the list's tag in the subject, thinks it's a post (especially if [s]he uses a subject-based filter rule and finds it in the same folder as list posts), and assumes you've said everything in it to the list.
At 12:50 PM -0400 10/25/00, ZENIT News Agency is rumored to have typed:
Remember that we're in the Microsoft era. I just checked -- Netscape 4.0+ will filter on body, but not arbitrary headers
Er...I just checked Communicator 4.5/Mac (note I do _not_ use this for email, and don't even have email preferences set), and in the "Message Filters" window when creating or editing a filter, when selecting from the first popup (defaults to "subject") the last entry is "Customize..." which brings up a "Customize" window allowing you to enter _any_ header field name you'd like; I easily added "X-Mailing-List" in this window, and then set a filter named "My Dummy Filter" in which any message where "X-Mailing-List" header (added to pop-up after customizing) contains "mylist-l@foo.bar" will be moved to the "Trash" folder. Obviously, a real filter, transfering to a "mylist" folder, could as easily be added.
<snip>
Outlook and its derivatives are similar.
You're telling me that a modern Microsoft application cannot perform the functions of a 1997 application from another company?
Explain to me again slowly why anyone uses it?
the problem being solved by the recipe is a real one.
I disagree; the problem appears to be within this one application, not the mailing list. There is no valid reason for using damaged software. (I have to tell you, I am somewhat in shock that even a company as inattentive to its customers' needs as Microsoft cannot do something as mind-numbingly simple as this. Are you _certain_ it cannot filter on X-* headers? As you might have noticed, I do _not_ use MS Internet applications...apparently for darned good reasons! But I simply cannot believe that it isn't possible to do something this simple. In a standard SmartList-sent message, there's X-Mailing-List:, X-Loop:, Resent-Sender:, Return-Path:...good grief, any _number_ of fields which contain unique information on which to filter. You are really telling me that OE is so damaged it can't handle _any_ of them? Good grief, even discontinued applications like Claris Emailer could handle something as obvious as this!)
Naturally, the digested mailing lists on my server contain the list name in the subject (heck, it _is_ the subject ;). The interactive lists simply will not. Like I said, anyone _else_ is welcomed to screw with their list posting's Subject: header fields all they want, but I have no intention of pandering to the lowest common denominator. If you post to my lists, you can be assured that you will not have some ham-handed administrator altering the sections over which you have control.
Charlie
Charlie Summers wrote:
At 12:50 PM -0400 10/25/00, ZENIT News Agency is rumored to have typed:
Remember that we're in the Microsoft era. I just checked -- Netscape 4.0+ will filter on body, but not arbitrary headers
Er...I just checked Communicator 4.5/Mac (note I do _not_ use this for email, and don't even have email preferences set), and in the "Message Filters" window when creating or editing a filter, when selecting from the first popup (defaults to "subject") the last entry is "Customize..." which brings up a "Customize" window allowing you to enter _any_ header field name you'd like;
<snip> You're correct. In the WIN32 versions, there's an "Advanced" button (which is not in the most intuitive spot, but is there).
<snip> > Outlook and its derivatives are similar.
You're telling me that a modern Microsoft application cannot perform the functions of a 1997 application from another company?
Explain to me again slowly why anyone uses it?
Well, when you buy a computer, install any piece of Microsoft software (even if utterly unrelated to the Internet), or touch the C key (exaggeration), these programs get installed in your computer and then try to harass you into "selecting" them as the defaults... Actually sometimes the "selection" is automatic. On the other hand, if I want to use any other program, I have to specifically go get it. Ergo, people use what they have.
the problem being solved by the recipe is a real one.
I disagree; the problem appears to be within this one application, not the mailing list. There is no valid reason for using damaged software. (I have to tell you, I am somewhat in shock that even a company as inattentive to its customers' needs as Microsoft cannot do something as mind-numbingly simple as this. Are you _certain_ it cannot filter on X-* headers?
I can't find the function in Outlook Express. The filtering dialog is very simplistic -- though you can specify not to even download certain messages (leading to a full mailbox on the server and lost email from bounces, I suppose). It can filter on the "normal" From, to, CC, etc.... And there's no "Advanced" or "Customize" option in the dialog. It's conceivable that this function is buried somewhere in a menu, but I have my doubts.
Actually, Microsoft is very "anti-header" in general. If you want to even SEE the headers (other than To, From; Subject, and CC), you've got to right-click the message, select Properties, move over to another tab /Details), and there you get a small window with the headers, which you can't cut and paste, and often have to right-scroll to see. When I was training another to use SmartList, this made for a quite difficult time... (I said to look for the confirmation header, and they said it didn't exist, etc.)
And you've got to insert a recipe into SmartList to use X-Commands, since these clients won't insert custom headers.
I did a header search on X-Mailer to check my recent mails, and 131 out of 597 included "Outlook" in that field... Maybe people are actually smartening up and leaving the M$ clients behind (or only smart people write to me :-) )
Anyway, there are various categories of lists. If you're running a high-level discussion, perhaps you can make demands of your users to be able to subscribe (which client to use etc.). Others who are trying to build a discussion, might have to "pander" to the lowest common denominator in order to build up a community.
At 4:14 AM -0400 10/26/00, ZENIT News Agency is rumored to have typed:
You're correct. In the WIN32 versions, there's an "Advanced" button (which is not in the most intuitive spot, but is there).
Hey, at least you have a button. That "Customize..." entry on the pop-up menu sure wouldn't be stumbled over by someone not specifically looking for it...
Well, when you buy a computer, install any piece of Microsoft software (even if utterly unrelated to the Internet), or touch the C key (exaggeration), these programs get installed in your computer and then try to harass you into "selecting" them as the defaults...
Yeah...I was going to mention that at least Macs were safe from that nonsense, but the painful truth is that nowadays IE and OE are the defaults on _those_ machines as well. (At least my Mac clients don't have to put up with that crap, since I'm careful to install no MS products whatsoever.)
I can't find the function in Outlook Express.
Please understand that I am _not_ doubting your word, I'm only in a state of shock that MS would be this brain-damaged; I realize it sounds like I think you missed something, but I really don't. (I know, I shouldn't be surprised, but I just can't get over it. How stupid _are_ the people in Redmond?)
Actually, Microsoft is very "anti-header" in general.
Microsoft is simply anti-STANDARD, but then we all know that, too.
Maybe people are actually smartening up and leaving the M$ clients behind (or only smart people write to me :-) )
I am proud and humbled to be considered such. ;)
If you're running a high-level discussion, perhaps you can make demands of your users to be able to subscribe (which client to use etc.). Others who are trying to build a discussion, might have to "pander" to the lowest common denominator in order to build up a community.
Maybe. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder what type of community they are trying to _build._ Sometimes when I am berated by someone for causing a problem that is actually on their end and would be obvious if they stopped yelling and listened to my explinations, I consider the person threatening to leave a liability on the list, and hope feverantly that they do indeed take a hike. Do we really _want_ people who don't know how to Reply-To-All (as an example only) on our mailing lists, or how to reply to a message without quoting an entire 30k digest? Are we so concerned about numbers that we'll take the lamest people possible only to build our subscriber base?
Not me, kids...I'm looking for quality, not quantity. If people don't like the way I run my lists, they're welcomed to go to Topica or eGroups and start their own. (On my "main" list, some have tried...and succeeded in reaching a subscriber base of less than 10% of my list, mostly people subscribed to both with a few malcontents who were banned, were removed, or who left mine, and messages that are filled with complete-digest quotations, 20-line signatures, and other unplesant things I automatically and manually forbid.) I realize there's no entrance exam for accessing the Internet, but sometimes I sure wish there were - it would solve a whole lot of problems like this.
Thanks, but I'll stick to being a hard-*ss...no successful mailing list can be run by a democracy, it _has_ to be a dictatorship. (No committee ever accomplished _anything_ on purpose, although I've seen a precious few stumble into successes acidentally...)
Charlie
Thanks, but I'll stick to being a hard-*ss...no successful mailing list can be run by a democracy, it _has_ to be a dictatorship. (No committee
ever
accomplished _anything_ on purpose, although I've seen a precious few
stumble
into successes acidentally...)
Charlie
But seriously: my mother would not understand anything you say. that is because your the expert, and she would be the client who just want to be able to discuss, let's say, the problems of the elderly. You tell her the RTFM, you loose a client. If you do not want her to be your client, that's fine. But some people run a smartlist list and just want my mother to use it. I want my clients to be comfortable using my lists. I don't think they want to here me say "buy a mac" or "use procmail" when they got a problem.
I do not understand what you mean with this thing about the committee, the democray and the dictatorship. Sounds pretty akward.
At 2:05 PM -0400 10/26/00, Jelmer Jellema is rumored to have typed:
But seriously: my mother would not understand anything you say.
(*sigh*) That is not correct; I am an excellent instructor. Ask around; there are a bunch of people here who have learned with my guidence. (Note I do not "teach," I try to "lead" people to understanding for themselves. Trust me, if your mother is motivated to learn, I can help her do just that.)
You tell her the RTFM, you loose a client. If you do not want her to be your client, that's fine.
It is not out of line for _anyone,_ including your mother (or mine, for that matter), to understand how to use the software she owns and operates. To suggest otherwise is simply making excuses for laziness. I have _never_ met anyone who was incapable of understanding, once motivated enough to attempt to learn, and guided gently in the proper direction.
I have, on the other hand, dealt with a lot of people who are too d*mned _lazy_ to learn, and just want me to make their life easier by screwing up my mailing lists.
I want my clients to be comfortable using my lists. I don't think they want to here me say "buy a mac" or "use procmail" when they got a problem.
I'm sorry, but I never suggested either of those things to any of the subscribers to my mailing lists (although I have occasionally _wanted_ to tell certain people that a Macintosh would be a better, simpler choice for them than a Windoze box, I have refrained). I _have_ said, "No, I will not alter the subject line of the messages on my mailing list, since I haven't the right to munge something the poster has typed, and there are other and better ways for filtering to be accomplished." I have also said, "No, I will _not_ change the Reply-To header of the messages; if you want to send a messgae to the list, you may use Reply-To-All, or copy/paste the list address into the To: field of the message, or drag-and-drop, or any of a bunch of other methods...but not every email _should_ go to the list, and I want you to think about whether your message should _before_ you send it and apologize later for sending private email to thousands of people." (Actually, I have said those things in a much gentler fashion, but we're all adults here, so I can afford to be more blunt.) Munging the subject is just the simplest way for the clueless to accomplish the filtering, munging the Reply-To is just the simplest way for the clueless to post messages to the list, and I have no intention to do any pandering to said clueless. I will bust my rear end helping someone understand how to do these things the _correct_ way, however.
I spend a _lot_ of time educating my subscribers (I have a boatload of form letters I've developed over the many years I've been operating mailing list servers from the good-old-days when mReply was sufficient, since we all trusted each other and never needed to worry about mailbombs and confirmations, and am always available for one-to-one sessions with any subscriber that really doesn't understand the information in the form letters), but I simply will not coddle those who do not _wish_ to learn their software, and instead expect _me_ to make things easy for them to the detriment of the cluefull. (Munging the Reply-To, for example, makes it _more difficult_ to send a private message, and no less difficult for the clueful to send a public message. It is the perfect example of an unnecessary and wasteful munge performed only for those too lazy to learn their own mail client software.)
Seems pretty simple, really. If you (again the emperical, not the reader personally) want to be on the Internet, you should have a passing understanding of the software you use, and not gripe to me because I am not screwing things around unnecessarily on my mailing list. Just as, if you want to write a letter and use a spell checker, you should learn how to use your word processing software, and not ask your recipient to correct your spelling mistakes before reading your letter.
I do not understand what you mean with this thing about the committee, the democray and the dictatorship.
I'm not surprised.
Charlie
From: "Charlie Summers" charlie@lofcom.com
(*sigh*) That is not correct; I am an excellent instructor. Ask around; there are a bunch of people here who have learned with my guidence. (Note
I
do not "teach," I try to "lead" people to understanding for themselves.
Trust
me, if your mother is motivated to learn, I can help her do just that.)
Seems pretty simple, really. If you (again the emperical, not the
reader
personally) want to be on the Internet, you should have a passing understanding of the software you use, and not gripe to me because I am
not
screwing things around unnecessarily on my mailing list. Just as, if you
want
to write a letter and use a spell checker, you should learn how to use
your
word processing software, and not ask your recipient to correct your
spelling
mistakes before reading your letter.
1) My mother does understand outlook express 2) The relationship between my (now emperical) mother and a recipient of her letter is a different one from the relationship between her and the supplier of a list. equal-equal vs client-supplier. I a want my bread cut in slices at the bakery, I don't want the baker to lead me into doing it, or him telling me I'm lazy.
It's not about do's and dont's. You can choose whether you want to instruct your users or adapt to their current level. Depends on the list as well. I think you will follow in this. So when you decide to change the subject line of an e-mail, and you have no principals against it, you might wonder "how?". That's the moment you ask a question. Are you a man of such great principals that you don't want to tell people how to do these things? They are not trying to build a bomb or something. They are trying to apend something to a stupid subject line on a stupid list. Not very world shocking.
I do not understand what you mean with this thing about the committee,
the
democray and the dictatorship.
I'm not surprised.
aha, yes, I can see the instructor in you :). No really, I'm interested in your opinions about this.You wrote (I paraphrase) a list would not function as a democracy, it needs a dictatorship (correct me if I put it wrong). Well, okay, that's something you hear quite often in system operators or software developers circles, allthought not allways in these words. But than you said a committee never accomplished anything. That part of your opinion is even more interesting, as it transcends the subject of mailing lists and takes it into a world view.
Sorry for my spelling mistakes. I bet there are dozens.
Jelmer
At 4:00 AM -0400 10/27/00, Jelmer Jellema is rumored to have typed:
I'm an outlook express user. Not because it's free, or it's great software, or it's microsoft (I sure hope the US en EU make them suffer). But because after years of mail, pine, NS, procmail stuff etc. I just wanted a interface based, a-technical program that did what I wanted: multiple-account HTML/TEXT based mail. I know it sucks, but that's because it cannot do a lot. Some other programs suck because you have to invest a lot of time making it work.
Ever look at Eudora? Pegasus? Communicator? Any of a host of _other_ "interface based, a-technical program[s]" that will also fill the bill _and_ may not "suck" (in your personal opinion)?
My 1997 copy of Eudora 3.1 does everything I could possibly ask it to do...including simple, a-technical filtering on arbitrary header fields.
At 4:12 AM -0400 10/27/00, Jelmer Jellema is rumored to have typed:
- The relationship between my (now emperical) mother and a recipient of her
letter is a different one from the relationship between her and the supplier of a list. equal-equal vs client-supplier. I a want my bread cut in slices at the bakery, I don't want the baker to lead me into doing it, or him telling me I'm lazy.
(*sigh*) To stretch an already-strained analogy close to the breaking point, you are paying the baker for the bread, and therefore have the right to specific services including having him slice it to your liking. You are _not_ paying me to be on my mailing list...indeed, I am providing a service to you for no payment which costs me time, money, and energy. I therefore expect you, as a subscriber, to understand how not to quote an entire digest issue back to the list, I expect you to be civil, I expect you to follow the posting rules, and I expect you to have a clue about your email software. If you ask _me_ to change things because _you_ are too lazy to learn your software, I will politely tell you to jump in a lake.
Look, you want to munge the subject of your messages? Knock yourself out. But at least try to understand why I am trying to stop _other_ people from making that mistake.
Are you a man of such great principals that you don't want to tell people how to do these things?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I _am._ I realize this concept may be completely foreign to you, but I would rather educate others in understanding why this is a really bad idea than give them a step-by-step instruction on how to screw up their list. Besides, as I mentioned in my very first reply, this is in the FAQ and is asked here every couple of weeks or so unnecessarily, wasting bandwidth on _this_ list (if I were listowner here, I would expect people to do a reasonable amount of research _before_ posting a question clearly answered in the FAQ; you wouldn't like that, either, so be cheerful I am not the listowner). Munging the subject is a simple thing to do, and all of the newbie list managers think it's a "cool" thing to do since they see eGroups and Topica doing it, so they want to do it too.
I'm just giving them valid reasons for _not_ emulating those amateur-hour productions. No one else discusses this other side of the subject (pun intended), so I will...since the recipies to do this are freely available in the FAQ, there's no _reason_ for me to detail how it should be done, and every reason for me to detail why it should _not_ be done. Deal with it.
I do not understand what you mean with this thing about the committee,
the
democray and the dictatorship.
I'm not surprised.
aha, yes, I can see the instructor in you :).
As I mentioned in my first message responding to you, I am not particularly interested in instructing you, since you have shown you will take the exact opposite position of _anything_ I say, and have proven in the past you would rather have other people do your work for you than learn how to do it on your own, thereby losing my respect. Given this, I am only interested in supplying to the other subscribers on this list a counterpoint argument to pandering to the lowest-common denominator subscriber, and dragging their lists down to that subscriber's level....what _you_ do with _your_ lists is completely irrelevant to me.
I am now quit with this discussion; if you feel the need to further beat this dead horse, you are welcomed to do so alone.
Charlie
From: "Charlie Summers" charlie@lofcom.com
particularly interested in instructing you, since you have shown you will take the exact opposite position of _anything_ I say,
I can agree with this one (on empirical basis) :) And I did not ask for any instruction.
and have proven in the past you would rather have other people do your work for you than learn
how
to do it on your own, thereby losing my respect.
As I recall, I wanted a specific answer to a specific question of the kind "I did this and this and this, did I do something wrong?" (which as it turned out, I did not). I'm commited to learn to operate all the software I use. I don't see where you got the idea I wanted other people to do the work.
Look, I'm tired too. The bigger question is:
Do we give answers to people, or do we critisise their questions.
Maybe, the other subscribers can decide?
I would like this discussion to stop too, so here's my proposition: - When people have a question about a particular solution, we commit to either give the solution, refer to the FAQ or refrain from answering *to the list*. - Any meta-comments about the question, like about whether one should want what they want, can be sent to the individual sender.
It's a petty mr Summers did not answer my questions about dictatorship and democracy. Well, maybe another time.
Jelmer Jellema (not here to fuck this list, this is a sincere concern).
I gotta agree with Charlie here. I've got a LARGE list and I take a lot of time with my users to explain what they can and can't do (i.e. if you DON'T put a subject line, the message WILL bounce to me!)
I absolutely DETEST Outlook or , worse yet, Outlook Express because they don't function to the level of many other clients. Heck Pegasus is FREE and works better!
I was told once by a Ford salesman (regarding the Saturn car) "Saturn isn't a car! It's a marketing strategy". I've found that to be true in my world as well "Microsoft isn't SOFTWARE, it's a Marketing strategy!"
I also agree that if you're going to want you grandmother, (or anyone else that is computer illiterate) to be on a list, use egroups or something that is "user friendly"...to MS. SmartList is Unix based and does some really great things. Because of Charlie's PATIENCE I have learned a LOT about it and UNIX. Now am putting in a separate server locally to host sites and run SmartList.
I just don't know why folks believe that because it's FREE, it should necessarily have an auto pilot on it. I don't find that to be true of most "free" cgi scripts and if you don't want to mess with the settings or the instruction of your users, they you really should be using something else.
Just my $.02
Liz Logan
At 01:18 PM 10/26/2000, Charlie Summers wrote:
Well, when you buy a computer, install any piece of Microsoft software (even if utterly unrelated to the Internet), or touch the C key (exaggeration),
these
programs get installed in your computer and then try to harass you into "selecting" them as the defaults...
From: "Liz Logan" lizlogan@automated-data.net
that is computer illiterate) to be on a list, use egroups or something
that
is "user friendly"...to MS. SmartList is Unix based and does some really great things.
That's why you can use it to make complex lists for people who know how to do "great things" and you can also use it to make it easy for your users. It's up to you. The smartlist technology is therefore, more like the MS or other "brands", no so much loaded with standards or, if you like, politics. People can use it the way they want to use it, if they know how.
I agree, there will always be users below your accepted level of stupidity. As a system operator I was allways suprised to find people who were able not to understand the simple instructions, written down in 4 or 5 lines. But well: if that's 1 or 2, I help them, of it's more, I change the way it works (depending, ofcause on the context).
I'm an outlook express user. Not because it's free, or it's great software, or it's microsoft (I sure hope the US en EU make them suffer). But because after years of mail, pine, NS, procmail stuff etc. I just wanted a interface based, a-technical program that did what I wanted: multiple-account HTML/TEXT based mail. I know it sucks, but that's because it cannot do a lot. Some other programs suck because you have to invest a lot of time making it work.
So, again, that's up to the customer given the constraints set-up by the list manager. Bottom line: If the list-manager decides to offer a technical solution, why not supply her or him with the way to do it, if you know it.
My ? 0.02 :) (outlook got the euro sign allready ;) Jelmer
smartlist@lists.rwth-aachen.de
-
Charlie Summers -
David W. Tamkin -
Franz Maruna -
Jelmer Jellema -
Liz Logan -
Michael A. Hess -
Steve Bankowitz -
ZENIT News Agency