Re: does anyone find it ironic that smartlist mailing list is using Mailman?
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 12:23:13PM -0400, Charlie Summers wrote:
I never saw any admin reply to the numerous complains about spam messages.
Actually, that's not _strictly_ true, since I remember when Stephen was actually maintaining the list (and probably anally have archives of the list from that time somewhere on some floppy or MO cart from a long time ago and far far away). But you're right, it's been _years_ since he's been around.
If someone doesn't care for 3 years for a list, although numerous complains has been sent, than there wasn't a maintainer. I am also not sure if Stephen really was the maintainer. I also think that the maintainer has to decide in the end what happens with a list but I cannot understand people who are doing nothing for a list, permitting postings of spam for years and suddenly deciding nonsense without asking anybody.
However, the list belongs to the maintainer (or at least the machine's admin), not the members. You'll get no argument from me that the list should be moved (I believe I said exactly that a couple of times), but to suggest the admins need to take a poll to ask what they may or may not do with the existing list is silly, to say the least. They are certainly able to move this list to mailman without the list subscriber's permission - indeed, they _have_ done so, which makes my point for me.
Your argumentation would be sensible if there would have been any maintainer. As I said before, there wasn't any maintainer since years. Therefore it would be at least polite if the new maintainer would ask the list what could be done. This list is nothing without the voluntary contributions of many list admins. I cannot say whether the move to mailman was unavoidable, because I don't read the procmail list and today I read first about this move. For me this move is only one more example for the complete ignorance with which SL subscribers have been treated. I think there hasn't changed anything in this respect because the move to mailman has been done by the university of Aachen for technical reasons. I am pretty sure that no one of SL's ghost maintainer(s) was involved. Therefore we are still in the same situation. There isn't a SL maintainer available. Now there is at least one Mailman maintainer available who stopped the spam - thanks God! If we want the SL list running on SL we should at first know who is the responsible (living) person for such questions or who should it be. Werner
At 4:32 PM -0400 7/28/00, Werner Reisberger is rumored to have typed:
If we want the SL list running on SL we should at first know who is the responsible (living) person for such questions or who should it be.
Exactly. And as I mentioned, the closest we have to someone "in charge" of this little zoo of ours would be Mr. Guenther, who hopefully will chime in with some insight. Charlie
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 12:23:13PM -0400, Charlie Summers wrote:
I never saw any admin reply to the numerous complains about spam messages.
Actually, that's not _strictly_ true, since I remember when Stephen was actually maintaining the list (and probably anally have archives of the
from that time somewhere on some floppy or MO cart from a long time ago and far far away). But you're right, it's been _years_ since he's been around.
If someone doesn't care for 3 years for a list, although numerous complains has been sent, than there wasn't a maintainer. I am also not sure if Stephen really was the maintainer.
I also think that the maintainer has to decide in the end what happens with a list but I cannot understand people who are doing nothing for a list, permitting postings of spam for years and suddenly deciding nonsense without asking anybody.
However, the list belongs to the maintainer (or at least the machine's admin), not the members. You'll get no argument from me that the list should be moved (I believe I said exactly that a couple of times), but to suggest the admins need to take a poll to ask what they may or may not do with the existing list is silly, to say the least. They are certainly able to move this list to mailman without the list subscriber's permission - indeed,
Hello again everyone, is it just me or was the SL list dead for those three (or so) years or was I the only one not receiving mail from it for all that time? I remember changing my subscription to the digest at some point, and also getting a few of them after that, but them it all went silent. Until a few days ago when I started to receive regular list mail again (about the move). I'll try to switch to digest mode again because my inbox can't handle the normal list onslaught. In case it doesn't work, I'll let you all know (and go back to the normal one). In any case, I'm glad to see the list again, and that things haven't changed much. ;-) Cheers Erik Soderstrom Philosopher, Irregular Scientist, Mailing list owner At 22:32 2000-07-28 +0200, Werner Reisberger wrote: list they
_have_ done so, which makes my point for me.
Your argumentation would be sensible if there would have been any maintainer. As I said before, there wasn't any maintainer since years. Therefore it would be at least polite if the new maintainer would ask the list what could be done. This list is nothing without the voluntary contributions of many list admins.
I cannot say whether the move to mailman was unavoidable, because I don't read the procmail list and today I read first about this move. For me this move is only one more example for the complete ignorance with which SL subscribers have been treated.
I think there hasn't changed anything in this respect because the move to mailman has been done by the university of Aachen for technical reasons. I am pretty sure that no one of SL's ghost maintainer(s) was involved.
Therefore we are still in the same situation. There isn't a SL maintainer available. Now there is at least one Mailman maintainer available who stopped the spam - thanks God!
If we want the SL list running on SL we should at first know who is the responsible (living) person for such questions or who should it be.
Werner
participants (3)
-
Charlie Summers -
Erik Soderstrom -
Werner Reisberger