From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 07:41:39 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA02906; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ntserver1.topica.com (ntserver1.topica.com [209.79.54.137]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA02899 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ntserver1.topica.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:29:03 -0700 Message-ID: <5124A826BADBD1118B1E00104B759FED0349A2@ntserver1.topica.com> From: Ken McDonald To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: RE: List-Managers-Digest V7 #94 Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:29:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Findmail >I agree that it would be much nicer if the result of a user request for >an >external archive was an email sent to the owner of the list in question >saying, >"User
has requested that we archive your list . >If >this is OK, please reply to this email with the word "yes" in the message >body; >any other response, or no response, will result in no archiving." How would Findmail know who the real list owner is? Unless I am missing something, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to know for sure who the list owner is on a given list. From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 08:37:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA03773; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA03766 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.8/1.2.3) id JAA06682; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:19:53 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <19980601091953.A6324@swcp.com> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:19:53 -0600 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V7 #94 Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <5124A826BADBD1118B1E00104B759FED0349A2@ntserver1.topica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <5124A826BADBD1118B1E00104B759FED0349A2@ntserver1.topica.com>; from Ken McDonald on Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 07:29:01AM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 07:29:01AM -0700, Ken McDonald wrote: > How would Findmail know who the real list owner is? By emailing owner-listname. It won't work for every list but it'll work for enough of them that there's no excuse for Findmail not at least trying it. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) ::: Internet Music Wantlists: http://www.swcp.com/lazlo/Wantlists From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 13:41:34 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA10654; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 13:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA10646 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 13:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA27966 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA15572 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:32:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:32:22 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: <5124A826BADBD1118B1E00104B759FED0349A2@ntserver1.topica.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Ken McDonald wrote: > How would Findmail know who the real list owner is? Unless I am > missing something, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to know for > sure who the list owner is on a given list. Most of the mailing list directories that I have seen include contact info for the listowner and or instructions for retrieval of a general info file describing the list. How would you go about finding a mailing list and yet not be able to find the listowner? - murr - From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 14:26:24 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA11469; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sportsurf.net (sportsurf.net [192.41.36.58]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA11462 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.204.56.156] (sss.pittsburgh.net [192.204.56.156]) by sportsurf.net (8.8.5) id PAA24528; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:15:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199806012115.PAA24528@sportsurf.net> Subject: Re: findmail Date: Mon, 1 Jun 98 16:21:55 -0500 x-sender: mark@sportsurf.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Mark Rauterkus To: , cc: "Scott Hassan" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, >...Findmail does not go out and actively or >automatically >look for external mailing lists to archive, but they do provide a Web >interface >where individual USERS can enter the name of a mailing list and ask that >it be >archived. If one of your mailing lists appears on Findmail, it's probably >because some interested subscriber put it there. This is true to my understanding too. And, FWIW, I've talked to the fellow who has built FindMail on the phone and past email messages. >Carl Page's suggestion, that concerned listowners start using X-No-Archive >all >over the place, has one enormous problem, which is that LEGITIMATE >archives for >your list may exist, with access rights and format of your choosing; this >"industry standard" cuts both ways. Of course. And, list participants who know what the heck they are doing can tag their outgoing mail header too. I'd like to empower the list participants with the right to archive or not their own contributions. I've got some of my lists archived at FindMail -- while others are not. We requested that a list description with "PRIVATE" or a list description with the keystrokes of [-] (that's bracket open, hyphen, bracket closed) be signals for the archivers to NOT archive that specific list. The FindMail administrator followed that subtle request from me in the past. I think it is still active there. This was from another archiver's FAQ I think. >Personally, I would watch (using Procmail) for subscribes from >findmail.com, and >kick them off immediately, and then send that "listsaver-of-" address just >ONE >message for its "archive" saying: THIS IS NOT THE REAL ARCHIVE. This was >created >without permission. Tell Findmail to stop operating this way." A wave of >those >ought to generate enough user feedback to get them to think about the >issue. :) I disagree fully. FindMail is a valid archive of the lists that I run. I would encourage others to use them. I would encourage others to have mirrored archives. FindMail is a great mirror if you ask me. I'm not going out an telling you all how to run your lists, mind you. And, if you have reason for FindMail not subscribing to your lists -- then fine. I do not want FindMail at all my lists and we've worked this out. I'm a little bent out of shape because there are too many lists out there without any archives. People tend to not want to stand by their words where there is no OPEN Book archive, IMHO. And, people can get the "wrong" impression too quickly if they are not pointed to what was said -- exactly -- at an independent archive site. Case in point - just the other day. I said on a public list that something should happen very soon -- and if I could, I'd schedule a press release for July 4 (and for our international friends, July 4 is USA Independence Day). I just gave a little side-bar extra statement why July 4 is sorta a big deal here in the USA. One reader (International) went nuts on me for that extra reading tip saying that I said USA is GOD's Country. What? No way. When a list is archived on the web - just give them the URL and say -- read it again. I never even mentioned GOD. The third party archives are good for total communications and understandings. They also are great for busy people who like to go no mail -- then get caught up on mail say a month later. FindMail is fine with me. And, FWIW, the FindMail is related to FindLaw. That site is worthy of a visit as it is advancing faster in the past year than FindMail. Take care all. -------------- Mark Rauterkus, Publisher E-books work in classrooms! mrauterkus@sportsurf.net http://SportSurf.Net/ -------------- From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 15:26:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA12359; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA12352 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tneffgp ([160.43.147.201]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id QAA03350; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:15:18 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tom Neff" To: "Mark Rauterkus" , Cc: "Scott Hassan" Subject: RE: findmail Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:15:23 -0400 Message-ID: <000001bd8daa$c58d9930$c9932ba0@tneffgp.bloomberg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199806012115.PAA24528@sportsurf.net> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Mark Rauterkus [mailto:mrauterkus@sportsurf.net] wrote: > Tom Neff wrote: > >Carl Page's suggestion, that concerned listowners start using X-No-Archive > >all over the place, has one enormous problem, which is that LEGITIMATE > >archives for your list may exist, with access rights and format of your choosing; > >this "industry standard" cuts both ways. > > Of course. And, list participants who know what the heck they are doing > can tag their outgoing mail header too. I'd like to empower the list > participants with the right to archive or not their own contributions. That is an individual choice you make as a listowner. Other listowners may choose NOT to "empower list participants" to choose whether some or all messages are archived offsite, and their choices as listowners should not be overruled or circumvented. > I've got some of my lists archived at FindMail -- while others are not. > > We requested that a list description with "PRIVATE" or a list description > with the keystrokes of [-] (that's bracket open, hyphen, bracket closed) > be signals for the archivers to NOT archive that specific list. The > FindMail administrator followed that subtle request from me in the past. > I think it is still active there. Again, the onus should NOT be on individual listowners to know in advance what intricate hoops to jump through in their list configurations in order to prevent some random external sites from deciding to archive them. People should be able to start lists where they want, on the terms they want, and expect to be ASKED if Findmail, or PenguinMail, or BoliviaMail, or whatever, wants to start archiving. Anyone can install Majordomo without knowing "Findmail" from Fanny Farmer, nor should they have to. > >Personally, I would watch (using Procmail) for subscribes from > >findmail.com, and kick them off immediately, and then send that "listsaver-of-" > >address just ONE message for its "archive" saying: THIS IS NOT THE REAL ARCHIVE. > >This was created without permission. Tell Findmail to stop operating this way." > >A wave of those ought to generate enough user feedback to get them to think about > >the issue. :) > > I disagree fully. FindMail is a valid archive of the lists that I run. Then do your listmasterly duty and register the Findmail archive yourself. I am talking about UNSOLICITED archiving without the listowner's knowledge or consent. It has nothing to do with whether the archive is "valid," whatever that means. As a listowner I may want to restrict who has access to the archive. I may have a paying list and wish to charge for access. I may have a superior archiver with valuable features and not welcome low-rent "competition" for the archiving role. I may have a list that encourages unselfconscious spontaneity and casual chatter, one where encouraging anal retentives to say "But on July 23, 1994, you wrote..." would spoil the fun. There are a lot of reasons. It should be my choice. I agree that Findmail is a valuable service, at least right now, and that all listowners should be told about it -- UP FRONT -- so they can decide for themselves whether they want to avail themselves of its services. They should not find out after the fact from a funny member name or a flurry of Altavista matches. > I'm not going out an telling you all how to run your lists, mind you. > And, if you have reason for FindMail not subscribing to your lists -- > then fine. I do not want FindMail at all my lists and we've worked this > out. Working it out privately is one thing, but establishing a policy would go a lot farther. From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 18:11:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA14424; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA14417 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA29188 ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:59:01 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5124A826BADBD1118B1E00104B759FED0349A2@ntserver1.topica.com> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:34:30 -0700 To: Ken McDonald , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: RE: List-Managers-Digest V7 #94 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:29 AM -0700 6/1/98, Ken McDonald wrote: > How would Findmail know who the real list owner is? Unless I am missing > something, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to know for sure who the > list owner is on a given list. By reading the list documentation that tells people how to use the list? Any list documentation that doesn't give a contact point for a real human is, IMHO, broken, so findmail is the least of their problems. And failing that, simply try postmaster at the site running the list. It's real tough to do these things, I realize. Better to toss the onus of responsibility on someone else. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 18:20:08 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA14433; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA14426 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA35084 ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:59:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806012115.PAA24528@sportsurf.net> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:45:38 -0700 To: Mark Rauterkus , , From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: findmail Cc: "Scott Hassan" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I'm not going out an telling you all how to run your lists, mind you. > And, if you have reason for FindMail not subscribing to your lists -- > then fine. I do not want FindMail at all my lists and we've worked this > out. > > I'm a little bent out of shape because there are too many lists out there > without any archives. People tend to not want to stand by their words > where there is no OPEN Book archive, IMHO. And, people can get the > "wrong" impression too quickly if they are not pointed to what was said > -- exactly -- at an independent archive site. I'm all for archives. I've put a lot of work INTO those archives on my sites. I'm about to spend the summer building even better ones, too. my problem isn't with the concept of findmail. My problem is with the implementation. Little things, like archiving myself without permission and not announcing to anyone (including the list and content owners) that the archives are being created. Like you said, not all of the lists are things that ought to be archived, and by not bothering ot ask the owners, findMail is saying they know this better than the owners do. I find that attitude rather arrogant at best. to take the data that someone creates by running a list, and then use it without telling them is pretty ugly. At best. It's likely quite illegal as far as copyright goes, but lets stick to ethics. Now, beyond that, consider a site that uses click-through advertising as a funding source, and as part of its system, has its own archival system with advertising banners. Now, FindMail wanders in and starts archiving it themselves, without telling the site they're now archiving. Suddenly, findmail has created an alternate access point for accessing that information, around the advertising. If the advertising is key to keeping that site running, it could kill the entire site. And they DO THIS WITHOUT ASKING, because they assume that the act of signing up is enough notice. That attitude is bogus. Imagine if someone signed up to Hotwired, copied the pages to his own site, and started redistributing HotWired's articles on his own web site. Same thing here. If people WANT to use FindMail, great. If findmail wants to offer their services, great. but when FindMail starts sneaking onto lists and doing it without permission and without notice, then I have a real problem. The responsibility for approving this is on the list owner, not FindMail. As long as findmail doesn't ask first, they're a pirate site in my eyes and will be treated as such. And if they have nothing to hide -- why do they hide what they're doing to lists? Why do site owners find out by accident, or after getting clued in to look on lists like this? Obviously, because if they do ask, they get told to go away. So they don't ask, and play the "approval by obscurity" games. of course, when they DO get found out, list owners tend to act like me: angry to hostile, and treat them like thiefs, which I believe they are. And then findmail sort of looks around and goes "Why are you angry?" Which only proves to me either they just plain old don't have a clue about this, or are playing dumb because it's to their advantage. Either way, I don't care. But if they want to offer their services, bless them. I'd say no, because I'm offering the services myself. But for lists that don't have archives, great. Just don't steal it without telling me and than suggest you're doing me a favor. you aren't. But they clearly don't understand that. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 20:56:54 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA17024; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 20:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA17017 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 20:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA24797; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:45:53 -0500 (CDT) To: Subject: Re: findmail References: <000101bd8c9e$21a49ec0$b07e2581@newmicronpc> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 01 Jun 1998 22:45:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Tom Neff"'s message of "Sun, 31 May 1998 10:12:23 -0400" Message-ID: Lines: 12 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.9/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "TN" == Tom Neff writes: TN> If I remember correctly, Findmail does not go out and actively or TN> automatically look for external mailing lists to archive, but they do TN> provide a Web interface where individual USERS can enter the name of a TN> mailing list and ask that it be archived. Unless they have changed their policy since my experiences, this is not the case. I have had findmail try to sign up to lists that have been dead for some time, and to lists created solely for testing. - J< From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 1 22:26:24 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA18654; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA18637 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA09634 ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:23:02 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: "Tom Neff"'s message of "Sun, 31 May 1998 10:12:23 -0400" <000101bd8c9e$21a49ec0$b07e2581@newmicronpc> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:59:11 -0700 To: Jason L Tibbitts III , From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: findmail Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:45 PM -0700 6/1/98, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Unless they have changed their policy since my experiences, this is not the > case. I have had findmail try to sign up to lists that have been dead for > some time, and to lists created solely for testing. I've had findMail attempt to sign up for lists that they promised to leave alone after the FIRST cease and desist. Which might explain just a bit why I get grumpy at FindMail.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 2 12:41:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA03306; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from skylist.net (skylist.net [38.153.106.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA03299 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [38.153.106.4] by skylist.net with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1); Tue, 2 Jun 1998 15:42:05 -0400 X-Sender: josh-skyweyr@pop.skylist.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806020800.BAA21002@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 15:27:59 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Joshua D. Baer" Subject: Re: findmail Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > How would Findmail know who the real list owner is? Unless I am missing > something, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to know for sure who the > list owner is on a given list. The list-header specs define a List-Owner header just for this purpose. ~Josh -- ---------------------------------- Joshua D. Baer SkyList Virtual Communities Please forgive typos or curt replies... I'm learning to type Dvorak! From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 3 10:11:27 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA20288; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linus.mitre.org (linus.mitre.org [129.83.10.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA20250 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from caffeine.mitre.org (caffeine [129.83.10.136]) by linus.mitre.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22022 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from justin@localhost) by caffeine.mitre.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA05328; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:02:22 -0400 (EDT) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: findmail References: "Tom Neff"'s message of "Sun, 31 May 1998 10:12:23 -0400" <000101bd8c9e$21a49ec0$b07e2581@newmicronpc> From: Justin Sheehy Date: 03 Jun 1998 13:02:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of "Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:59:11 -0700" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.10/Emacs 20.2 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach writes: > I've had findMail attempt to sign up for lists that they promised to > leave alone after the FIRST cease and desist. Yep. Same here. The list that I mentioned earlier in this thread was one that they had subscribed to several months earlier. We told them to buzz off, and we even put their silly "PRIVATE LIST" crud in the info file. I think that it should not be necessary to explicitly opt out, but it was still done. They resubscribed anyway. They did so without asking anyone, without contacting a single human. They may provide a service that some people like, but their ethics and netiquette are severely lacking. -Justin From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 3 12:26:30 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA21565; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gauntlet.newschool.edu (gauntlet.newschool.edu [149.31.1.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA21558 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gauntlet.newschool.edu; id OAA17586; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:34:29 -0400 Received: from unknown(149.31.5.22) by gauntlet.newschool.edu via smap (3.2) id xma017364; Wed, 3 Jun 98 14:33:47 -0400 Received: from NEW_SCHOOL-Message_Server by newschool.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 03 Jun 1998 15:18:35 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 15:17:51 -0400 From: Frank Rizulo To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: tracking the response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I would like to advertise my list in several publications and track the response I get from each publication. I thought of asking the subscriber to put a code from the publication in the subscription request -- maybe in the subject or the second line. Will I, as the owner, see this code when I'm notified of a new subscriber. Is there another or better way to accomplish this? Thank you, Frank Rizulo rizulof@newschool.edu From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 3 15:12:02 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA24601; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 15:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA24592 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 15:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.8/1.2.3) id QAA26678; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:02:26 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <19980603160225.A22940@swcp.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:02:25 -0600 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: tracking the response Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Frank Rizulo on Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 03:17:51PM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 03:17:51PM -0400, Frank Rizulo wrote: > I would like to advertise my list in several publications and track the > response I get from each publication. I thought of asking the subscriber to > put a code from the publication in the subscription request -- maybe in the > subject or the second line. Will I, as the owner, see this code when I'm > notified of a new subscriber. > > Is there another or better way to accomplish this? I'm going to assume you're using majordomo, in which case there's no easy way to pass this kind of information along in a subscription request. You could make sure strip=no and ask people to send their requests in the form: subscribe listname address@dom.ain (found it in wired) subscribe listname some@one.else (GOOD HOUSEKEEPING) but let's face it, you're not going to get people to do this properly and consistently. My quick-and-dirty solution would be to set up a separate request address for each place you're advertising in, as follows: listname-wired: "|/tools/majordomo/wrapper majordomo -l listname", rizulof listname-pcgamer: "|/tools/majordomo/wrapper majordomo -l listname", rizulof listname-harpers: "|/tools/majordomo/wrapper majordomo -l listname", rizulof listname-newsweek: "|/tools/majordomo/wrapper majordomo -l listname", rizulof This will forward the requests to majordomo for processing (users would just say "subscribe" in the body of their request, leaving out the list name) and also give you your own copy of each request that you can filter, sort, and count as you see fit. Haven't tested this, so use at your own risk. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) ::: Internet Music Wantlists: http://www.swcp.com/lazlo/Wantlists From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 8 11:11:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA24889; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw3adm.rcsntx.swbell.net (mail-gw3adm.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.60.103]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA24881 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [206.170.3.237] (ppp-206-170-3-237.okld03.pacbell.net [206.170.3.237]) by mail-gw3adm.rcsntx.swbell.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA22070 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:03:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199806081803.NAA22070@mail-gw3adm.rcsntx.swbell.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 11:03:27 -0700 Subject: HTML email From: "KHC" To: List Mgrs Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On my other list, there was some discussion about banning email attachments. The general attitude seems to be against attachments of any kind, whether or not it's HTML proper (inline GIFs or JPGs only). Does HTML email cause problems for most lists? -Kenneth From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 8 11:56:53 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA25730; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA25723 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA13952; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA27944; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:51:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:51:17 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: KHC cc: List Mgrs Subject: Re: HTML email In-Reply-To: <199806081803.NAA22070@mail-gw3adm.rcsntx.swbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, KHC wrote: > Does HTML email cause problems for most lists? Yes. I require plain ASCII only on all of the lists I administer. Only a small percentage of folks can read oddly formatted email as individual posts. This problem is worse with digests. IMHO, specially formated email should only be used between two parties who agree in advance on the alternative format. For general use, plain ASCII is the only acceptable format. HTML, MIME or UUencoded attachments are inappropriate for most discussion mailing lists. There may be a few exceptions for lists which are expressly set up for the exchange of binaries, documents and such. - murr - From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 8 12:11:48 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA26240; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 12:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA26233 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 12:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19236 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:10:38 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA20007 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:10:37 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806081910.OAA20007@celery.tssi.com> Subject: RE HTML email To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:10:37 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk KHC wrote: > On my other list, there was some discussion about banning email attachments. > The general attitude seems to be against attachments of any kind, whether or > not it's HTML proper (inline GIFs or JPGs only). > > Does HTML email cause problems for most lists? I think the answer varies depending on the nature of the list. My lists are all 'discussion' lists, for which GIF's and JPG's are completely out of line, as are other binary attachments. I also ban posts in HTML because IMHO HTML adds little, if any, significant value just through formatting, the duplication inherent in most HTML encoded messages is wasteful (the cost of my net connection tripled in the last year because of increased bandwidth needs, mostly caused by list traffic), and HTML causes problems with a significant number of my subscribers. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 8 15:41:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA29047; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 15:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw3.pacbell.net (mail-gw3.pacbell.net [206.13.28.55]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA29040 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 15:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [206.170.33.54] (ppp-206-170-33-54.okld03.pacbell.net [206.170.33.54]) by mail-gw3.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1+antispam) with ESMTP id PAA18215 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 15:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806082241.PAA18215@mail-gw3.pacbell.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 15:20:00 -0700 Subject: Re: HTML email From: "KHC" To: List Mgrs Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> >> Does HTML email cause problems for most lists? > >I think the answer varies depending on the nature of the list. My lists >are all 'discussion' lists, for which GIF's and JPG's are completely >out of line, as are other binary attachments. I also ban posts in HTML >because IMHO HTML adds little, if any, significant value just through >formatting, the duplication inherent in most HTML encoded messages is >wasteful (the cost of my net connection tripled in the last year because >of increased bandwidth needs, mostly caused by list traffic), and HTML >causes problems with a significant number of my subscribers. >-- >Mike Nolan > Hmmm... Good to know. Is an attached GIF, which shows up as an inline graphic (for most people who can receive attachments) considered HTML? I may be mistaking the two terms -- especially for the fact that my email software (Microsoft Outlook Express 4.01) has the feature to turn off HTML -- I'm hoping this means I can turn off an attached inline GIF? Does this also mean others can turn off attachments in GIF or JPG format if they have the email HTML on/off feature? The list in question is one that discusses CAD graphics -- stuff which I think can be attached as small GIFs when needed for messages each about 10k to 20k in size (compared to 1k to 5k for ASCII). Is special setup needed for such a list? -Kenneth From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 9 08:41:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA13996; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 08:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA13987 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 08:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.8/1.2.3) id JAA08265; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:42:43 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <19980609094243.A8037@swcp.com> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:42:43 -0600 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List Mgrs Subject: Re: HTML email Mail-Followup-To: List Mgrs References: <199806082241.PAA18215@mail-gw3.pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <199806082241.PAA18215@mail-gw3.pacbell.net>; from KHC on Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 03:20:00PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 03:20:00PM -0700, KHC wrote: > Is an attached GIF, which shows up as an inline graphic (for most people who > can receive attachments) considered HTML? If the message doesn't have HTML in it, it's not an HTML message. > I may be mistaking the two terms -- especially for the fact that my email > software (Microsoft Outlook Express 4.01) has the feature to turn off HTML -- > I'm hoping this means I can turn off an attached inline GIF? Does this also > mean others can turn off attachments in GIF or JPG format if they have the > email HTML on/off feature? I'm not sure what you mean by "turn off" -- if you don't include images in your outgoing messages there shouldn't be any. > The list in question is one that discusses CAD graphics -- stuff which I > think can be attached as small GIFs when needed for messages each about > 10k to 20k in size (compared to 1k to 5k for ASCII). Is special setup > needed for such a list? No. Majordomo by default will happily pass any content you can get into an email message. You might need to increase some administrative limits for larger messages, but that's all. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) ::: Internet Music Wantlists: http://www.swcp.com/lazlo/Wantlists From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 9 10:27:55 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA15548; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp5.netcom.com [163.179.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA15537 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by netcomsv.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v2.01)) id KAA14971 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:27:01 -0700 (PDT) >Return-Path: Received: from sagarmatha.com by netcomsv.netcom.com; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:27 PDT Received: by chomolongma (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0yjQzV-000VJKC; Tue, 9 Jun 98 09:11 PDT Message-Id: From: james@sagarmatha.com (James C. Armstrong) Subject: Re: HTML email (fwd) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:11:17 -0800 (PDT) Reply-To: james@sagarmatha.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Lazlo Nibble is alleged to have written: -> On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 03:20:00PM -0700, KHC wrote: -> > Is an attached GIF, which shows up as an inline graphic (for most people who -> > can receive attachments) considered HTML? -> If the message doesn't have HTML in it, it's not an HTML message. Well, that's not strictly true. You can interpret text with an HTML interpreter, there are just no markups to modify the appearance. However, in the case above, I agree that I would not call it an HTML message. -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | Lies of the 90's: james@sagarmatha.com | 1. The check's in the mail | 2. I'll still respect you in the AM. | 3. Click here to be removed from our list. From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 9 11:41:45 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA16662; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw2.pacbell.net (mail-gw2.pacbell.net [206.13.28.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA16655 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [206.170.33.138] (ppp-206-170-33-138.okld03.pacbell.net [206.170.33.138]) by mail-gw2.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1+antispam) with ESMTP id LAA01210 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806091829.LAA01210@mail-gw2.pacbell.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 11:29:03 -0600 Subject: Re: HTML email From: "KHC" To: List Mgrs Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >> I may be mistaking the two terms -- especially for the fact that my email >> software (Microsoft Outlook Express 4.01) has the feature to turn off HTML -- >> I'm hoping this means I can turn off an attached inline GIF? Does this also >> mean others can turn off attachments in GIF or JPG format if they have the >> email HTML on/off feature? > >I'm not sure what you mean by "turn off" -- if you don't include images in >your outgoing messages there shouldn't be any. > I'm just curious if, when somebody attaches a GIF to a message that I pick up, then does it automatically become "HTML" in terms of mail handling and my software receiving it? From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 9 12:12:28 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA17330; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA17304 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.8/1.2.3) id NAA04569; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:12:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <19980609131255.A4361@swcp.com> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:12:55 -0600 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List Mgrs Subject: Re: HTML email Mail-Followup-To: List Mgrs References: <199806091829.LAA01210@mail-gw2.pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <199806091829.LAA01210@mail-gw2.pacbell.net>; from KHC on Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 11:29:03AM -0600 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 11:29:03AM -0600, KHC wrote: > I'm just curious if, when somebody attaches a GIF to a message that I pick > up, then does it automatically become "HTML" in terms of mail handling and > my software receiving it? No. An HTML message is a message that contains HTML code. I suppose there might be some mail clients out there that automatically embed attached images in some kind of HTML skeleton, but I don't think I've ever run across one. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) ::: Internet Music Wantlists: http://www.swcp.com/lazlo/Wantlists From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 9 12:42:14 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA18117; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geocities.com (mail3.geocities.com [209.1.224.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA18110 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (166-93-39-100.rmi.net [166.93.39.100]) by geocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04498 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980609133553.007da290@mail.geocities.com> X-Sender: john_meyer@mail.geocities.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:35:53 -0600 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: John Meyer Subject: Steering an OT back on topic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, I was wondering if anybody had any ways in which they steered OT conversations back on topic and how long do they allow a tangenial conversation to go on on their list. ,dP""d8b, John Meyer d" d88"8b john_meyer@geocities.com I8 Y88a88) TechBits Poderator `Y, a )888P http://members.tripod.com/~john_ludwig_meyer "b,,a88P" "Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today" -Ayn Rand From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 9 13:26:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA19199; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from triceratops.com (triceratops.com [206.83.162.235]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id NAA19192 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:14:43 -0700 (PDT) From: johnjohn@triceratops.com Received: (qmail 27235 invoked by uid 100); 9 Jun 1998 20:15:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19980609201508.27234.qmail@triceratops.com> Subject: Re: Steering an OT back on topic To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:15:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980609133553.007da290@mail.geocities.com> from "John Meyer" at Jun 9, 98 01:35:53 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Hi, I was wondering if anybody had any ways in which they steered OT > conversations back on topic and how long do they allow a tangenial > conversation to go on on their list. Sorry, but if your question doesn't have anything to do with bashing findmail, bashing html mail, bashing ... Oh, I get it. -- John White Triceratops Admin johnjohn@triceratops.com From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 9 13:41:30 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA19283; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA19276 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08393 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:21:13 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA14064 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:21:12 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806092021.PAA14064@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Steering an OT back on topic To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:21:12 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk John Meyer wrote: > > Hi, I was wondering if anybody had any ways in which they steered OT > conversations back on topic and how long do they allow a tangenial > conversation to go on on their list. Ask 100 list managers and you'll probably get at least 100 answers. I've used all of the following strategies: 1. Post on the off-topic thread and try to make it more relevant. This usually requires SOME relevance be present in the first place, it would be challenging to steer a thread about Windows 95 back to a discussion on body surfing, for example. 2. Send the poster(s) private notes suggesting they drop the thread or take it to e-mail. On many lists your subscribers will do this, too, usually less politely than I do. 3. Make PUBLIC posts saying that the thread is no longer welcome. I find this works almost all the time, though it might take another 24 hours for the last round of posts to straggle in. I prefer to handle this disciplinary matter myself, on occasion some of my subscribers will post or send me private e-mail to suggest some thread go away, I generally ask them to let me be the 'bad guy'. (That probably means my tolerance level is slightly below that of my subscribers.) 4. Threaten to and/or suspend posting privileges for people who continue the off topic thread. Fortunately, I have a built-in four day waiting period for new subscribers, implemented by a daily job which copies the subscriber list through a series of three three intermediate files and then to the posting list, so all I have to do is take someone out of the active posting list (and possibly one or more of the intermediate holding files) and the posting privileges are restored anywhere from one to four days later, depending on how long I choose to suspend them. I do this for ALL obvious copyright abuses, BTW, it gives me a line of defense should I ever get sued or threatened by a copyright holder for posts sent to my lists by subscribers. I generally treat all disciplinary matters as private, but on very rare occasion I have posted about disciplinary action taken. I've never had to permanently suspend someone's posting privileges, though I do have that capability. 5. Kick the offender(s) off your list completely. In over 7 years of running sports lists, I've only had to do this about a half dozen times. (Anti-spam measures not included.) As to when to pull the plug, it sort of depends, I usually do it when my gut reaction to another post on the thread is 'Oh no, not ANOTHER one!'. But some of the best ON-TOPIC posts have come about as a result of OFF-TOPIC threads that stimulated more relevant discussion. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 08:56:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA05542; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linus.mitre.org (linus.mitre.org [129.83.10.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA05535 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 08:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from caffeine.mitre.org (caffeine [129.83.10.136]) by linus.mitre.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA19892 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from justin@localhost) by caffeine.mitre.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20559; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:56:47 -0400 (EDT) To: List Mgrs Subject: Re: HTML email References: <199806081803.NAA22070@mail-gw3adm.rcsntx.swbell.net> From: Justin Sheehy Date: 10 Jun 1998 11:56:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: "KHC"'s message of "Mon, 08 Jun 1998 11:03:27 -0700" Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.11/Emacs 20.2 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "KHC" writes: > Does HTML email cause problems for most lists? I've found that once I taboo out anything with any of the following headers, HTML email (and several other abominations) don't cause any problems at all for my lists. /^Content-Type:.*image/ /^Content-Type:.*text\/html/ /^Content-Type:.*vcard/ /^Content-Type:.*ms-tnef/ /^Content-Disposition:.*attachment/ -Justin From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 17:44:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA12371; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA12361 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.portal.ca (shell.portal.ca [204.174.35.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA26668 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 12:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by shell.portal.ca (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA26438; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 12:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 12:26:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Christine Code X-Sender: cmc@shell.portal.ca Reply-To: Christine Code To: List Mgrs cc: archken@pacbell.net Subject: Re: HTML email In-Reply-To: <199806081803.NAA22070@mail-gw3adm.rcsntx.swbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kenneth wrote: > On my other list, there was some discussion about banning email > attachments. Sounds like a good plan. > The general attitude seems to be against attachments of any kind, whether or > not it's HTML proper (inline GIFs or JPGs only). > > Does HTML email cause problems for most lists? HTML e-mail looks like crap when viewed in software that doesn't support this "feature." The mailing lists I run don't accept e-mail in HTML format. We'd rather focus on content instead of glitz, and it's important to us have all of the list postings look ok on everybody's screen. That's just my opinion, of course. I'm sure there will be others with different priorities. :-) Take care, cmc Christine Code "More than anything I must have Vancouver, Canada flowers, always, always." cmc@ferret.net -Monet http://www.ferret.net/cmc/ From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 17:56:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA12114; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA12104 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA11115 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09282 Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: murr rhame cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, murr rhame wrote: > > How would Findmail know who the real list owner is? Unless I am > > missing something, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to know for > > sure who the list owner is on a given list. > > Most of the mailing list directories that I have seen include contact > info for the listowner and or instructions for retrieval of a general > info file describing the list. How would you go about finding a > mailing list and yet not be able to find the listowner? It should be listed in an info message available from the list-managemnt software; optimally, the list owner should always be reachable at the -request address. (While some people automate this address, it's not clear to me that's consistent with the RFC's, and I'd strongly suggest a copy of all mail to that address go to the list manager.) -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 18:00:31 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA12147; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA12139 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA29759 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20948; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:01:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980602120144.A20595@gsp.org> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:01:44 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: Carl Page Subject: Re: findmail References: <199805131808.OAA06906@panix.com> <199805131808.OAA06906@panix.com> <19980514180651.A23636@swcp.com> <3.0.5.32.19980515010803.031205b0@vault.findmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980515010803.031205b0@vault.findmail.com>; from Carl Page on Fri, May 15, 1998 at 01:08:03AM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, May 15, 1998 at 01:08:03AM -0700, Carl Page wrote: > Thanks for informing us of the concern. We are careful to always subscribe > to lists under the name listsaver-of-@findmail.com which is > the best way to contact the list manager in advance to request permission. It is most emphatically *NOT* the best way to contact the list manager, especially when one considers that many mailing lists use automated subscription agents. The best way to contact the list manager is to read the list's documentation/announcement/web site/etc. and discover the address of the list manager. > There is litte more we can do without being accused of spamming the list > or the list managers. Well, it's quite obvious that sending mail to the entire list would be incorrect, since it would reach N people, N-1 of which cannot help you. But contacting list managers *individually* is not spamming. I'd note in passing, however, that if you are running a site whose model is ineffective without spamming, that you should seriously reconsider the operation of that site. > To avoid lists being archived, the best bet is to use the industry > standard tag all responsible archive sites obey, X-NO-ARCHIVE: Yes. No, it's not. You should not archive any lists or messages which you have not been specifically authorized to. To do otherwise violates the copyright of the list owner as well as the individual posters. In other words, you've got it backwards: we, the list managers and list contributors, should not have to stop you from doing something; you should ask permission *first* and not proceed unless you have it. > In any case we are always willing to delete archives at the managers > request, and we allow message posters to delete their postings > automatically even once they are in the archives, using the personal > message removal systmem. What security/authentication measures do you have in place to ensure that the person requesting deletion of an archive/individual message is in fact a the person responsible for that archive/individual message? How do you *effectively* notify every single person whose list/messages have been archived? ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 18:06:17 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA12418; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA12406 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA20998 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28096; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA19695; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:58:38 -0700 To: spamtools@abuse.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:58:38 -0700 Message-ID: <19693.897429518@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [This message is being cross-posted to both the spamtools mailing list and also to the List-Managers mailing lists, since it really has a lot of relevance to both audiences.] On the spamtools mailing list, Hugh Browner wrote: >In theory that is correct, but the reality tends to be messier... I think that's a nice capsule summary of the majority of what we folks here attempt to do vis a vis filtering. Time and time again we see that the devil is in the details. For example, the first and perhaps most onerous detail that most of us have encountered when trying to filter out ``bulk'' junk E-mail is that it is (or at least can be, in the hands of a real professionla spammer), for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from legitimate opt-in mailing list traffic. I feel sure that I am not alone among the subscribers to this list in having spent more than a little time mentally wrestling with this rather large impediment to effective spam filtering. Today, I would like to say a word or two about that, and throw out what may perhaps be a new idea and see what comments it might elicit. Think about this for a second... The simplest way to filter out all junk E-mail on any given system which supports a substantial number of different and independent E-mail accounts/user-IDs would be to write a little routine in your MTA (or add a front end for your MTA) which simply keeps track of the number of messages incoming from a given IP address within the past N minutes (where `N' is some modest number like 30, 60, 120, or 180). If the number of ``recent'' incoming message from a given IP address exceeds some fixed limit (say for example 10% or 20% of the total number of independent E-mail accounts on your system), then you have your MTA simply block all further port 25 connects from the given IP address for a period of five days (after which time most kinds of SMTP clients that might have been attempting to send mail to your system will have given up in disgust). This is a near perfect solution to the E-mail spam problem _except_ that it implies that you _are_ going to accept that first group of spams to that first 10% or 20% of your user base (which is probably acceptable if you consider that you are buying protection for the other 80 or 90%) _and_ except for the fact that this strategy immediately causes you to lose essentially all traffice to your users from legitimate opt-in mailing lists. (Obviously, this latter bit of collateral damage is certainly _not_ acceptable to the majority of mail administrators and end users.) So is there a way to make this work? I think that the answer is ``perhaps''. Imagine the following scenario for the evolution of the Internet and for the evolution of legitimate opt-in mailing lists. Some party (or parties) declares itself to be a sort-of central clearing house for information on legitimate mailing lists. Let's just call it `legit-lists.org'. That party operates some sort of a server which allows other sites to obtain (either via push or via pull, whatever seems to make the most sense) a full and current list of legitimate opt-in mailing lists _and_ their associated *public encryption keys*. (Now stay with me here. It isn't as bad as you think, and I'm *not* going to propose any sort of exhorbitantly complex Rube Goldberg mechanism... just something simple based upon public-key encryption technology.) So anyway, now we have this hypothetical non-profit organization which is maintaining a server that provides lists of legit opt-in mailing lists and their associated public keys. Other sites can ``subscribe'' to this service and they will receive a full updated dump of the legitimate mailing lists data base, say, every night, perhaps via ordinary E-mail (push) or perhaps via some other mechiansm. (This is just implementation details, so let's not even dwell on the specifics of how this information gets distributed to partitipating sites. That can be worked out later.) Now, each participating legitimate opt-in mailing list, in exchange for the privledge of being listed as such by this ``clearing house'' organization (and by its data base server) must agree to the following simple conditions: o Subscriptions to the list in question are done on a a strictly opt-in basis, and adequate records are kept at the home site of the mailing list to verify that this is indeed the case when and if any questions arise regarding individual subscriptions. o All messages distributed by the mailing list in question must carry one additional new header. The name selected for this header isn't terribly important, so let's just call it the `X-Opt-In:' header. For each message distributed by/from the mailing list in question, the X-Opt-In: header would contain two argument fields, i.e.: X-Opt-In: Thats the sum total of the requirements for participating mailing lists. Now, some elaboration... The would be a globally unique designator for the list in question. It would be a simple string of letters, digits and hyphens issued to the list admin by the central clearing house. t the time the list is registered with the central clearing house. This mailing list handle would be very similar in both sprit and function to a NIC handle... i.e. a unique designator for the list which would remain the same even if the list in question is relocated to a different server or if the envelope return address on the outgoing list messages must change in some way. The would be just the string in the Date: header of the outgoing message, but encrypted with the *private key* which belongs to the list owner/administrator. (This private key would have to be kept secret by the list administrator.) On the receiving end, sites which receive mail to some large number of their users (say 20 or more) at about the same time from a given IP address would check the message after the first 20 for the presence of a valid X-Opt-In: header. If that is not present, or if such a header is present but the decryption of the part of the X-Opt-In: header (using the public key known to be associated with the relevant mailing list) fails to match the string in the Date: header, then the message is rejected, hopefully at the SMTP/MTA level, _before_ it even gets written to disk on the receiving system. So anyway, that's the idea in a nutshell. This would completely thwart mass spamming from illegitimate (opt-out) mailing lists. Spammers would still be able to spam, but their spam messages would not even be seen by the vast majority of their intended recipients. (Imagine if the spammer could only spam a maximum of 20 people on each of aol.com, msn.com, worldnet.att.com, pacbell.net, etc., etc. This would pretty much take all of the fun and all of the potential profit out of E-mail spamming, and I think that after awhile they would all just give up.) Potential issues/problems: o All of the mechanism for generating and attaching the new X-Opt-In: header would have to be integrated into all of the most commonly used mailing list administration packages. It would have to be pretty much of a nearly-no-brainer for the mailing lists admins to use this new (optional) feature. Basically, they mailing list admin packages would have to allow the list admins to just enter their list handles and their private keys into their mailing list configuration files, and then the list management packages would have to automatically do all the rest of the work. o Where do you get a nice public-key encryption mechanism that *isn't* going to cost people money in the form of royalties. (If mailing list admins have to pay _anything_ for this new feature then they will just balk and they will _never_ buy into it or implement it.) It turns out that this isn't such a big problem as you might think. RSA data systems owns patents on one form of public-key encryption technology and based on the reports that I have seen, then tend strongly towards the butthead end of the spectrum when it comes to being agressively litigous in trying to enforce their somewhat questionable patents in this area, but fortunately, there's a whole 'nother implementation of public-key encryption technology that's available royalty-free, thanks to the U.S. Guberment, so that could be used instead. (I'm already using this alternative stuff in my own commercial package, and I ain't gonna be payin' anybody a dime for the privledge.) o Fear and loathing (or, alternatively, fear uncertainty and doubt, aka the FUD factor). Essentially all of the major traditions and mechanisms of the Internet are designed to _avoid_ reliance upon any sort of central authority whenever possible and at all costs. In those rare instances where there has seemed to be no viable alternative to having some central coordinating authority (e.g. in the case of the domain name space and/or the IP address space) people have generally reacted with a conbination of fear and loathing (with the emphasis clearly on loathing) to the ways in which the powers of the central authority or (or are not) exercised. The result is often great raging debates and ongoing drawn-out conflicts. The central mailing list information clearing house would likewise and inevitably become the subject of heated debate and, most likely, raging hostility. Spammers would of course represent the first wave of hostility towards such an entity/organization, but that is not something that I personally would give a rat's ass about. (Let 'em complain. Who cares?) More serious issues would inevitably be raised with respect to the decisions and judgement calls that this organiza- tion would have to make regarding which lists are and which lists are not ``legitimate'' opt-in mailing lists. But I believe that in the case of this kind of a central authority, the exercise and potential abuses of power would be entirely less of a concern than in the cases of (say) the Internic or ARIN/RIPE/APNIC because sites could easily get the same sorts of information from other other, competing pro- viders of this same sort of service. In short, I believe that it would be far more likely for this sort of an ``information service'' to evolve to the point where there would be perhaps three or more major independent providers of this information... exactly like there are now three major credit bureaus... than it would be for something like an Internic or an ARIN to get some meaningful competition from alternative providers of the type of information that _they_ provide. In short, I am not too worried about this postulated ``central clearing house'' for mailing list information becoming an abusive, egotistical, unresponsive monopoly in the same way that (some say) the Internic has done. It just seems to me that such an evolution/outcome would be much less likely in this case. Still, there are those who will decry _any_ kind of singular authority if it has any significant impact upon the day-to-day functioning of the Internet, so whoever runs this thing would need to have a VERY thick skin. So? Any comments? Let's say that I set this all up next week. Just suppose. Can I see a show of hands of how many of you mailing list administrators would actually sign up, get an official handle for your mailing list and get a public/private encryption key pair? If nobody on the planet thinks this is a good idea, then I guess I'll drop the whole thing. But this _is_ a viable, complete, and long-term solution the whole bulk spam problem. If only legit people can successfully send out E-mail in bulk, then the days of spam (and spammers) will be gone forever. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 20:41:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA17383; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tekka.wwa.com (tekka.wwa.com [198.49.174.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id UAA17376 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tekka.wwa.com via sendmail with stdio id for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:34:05 -0500 (CDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #88 built 1997-Nov-30) Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:34:04 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <19693.897429518@monkeys.com> from "Ronald F. Guilmette" at Jun 9, 98 02:58:38 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Responding only to list-managers, not to spamtools, because I'm not a member of spamtools.] Ron Guilmette laid out his proposal and asked, | So? Any comments? Yes: how does the proposed central authority make sure that a list whose owner is attempting to register it is truly opt-in, so that list handles are not given to spammers and public keys not accepted from them? Since the list could not actually send mail out until it has been registered and assigned a handle, the central authority could not monitor the operation of the list before making a decision. Second, suppose a spammer files an application for an opt-in list as a decoy and gets it registered; what is to stop said spammer from using that regis- tration on UCE? The registration would be revoked forthwith, but another email address + another decoy application = another registration. DWT From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 21:26:37 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA18257; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA18248 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA17277; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:27:55 -0500 (CDT) To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 10 Jun 1998 23:27:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Roger B.A. Klorese"'s message of "Mon, 1 Jun 1998 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 40 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.9/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "RBAK" == Roger B A Klorese writes: RBAK> optimally, the list owner should always be reachable at the -request RBAK> address. (While some people automate this address, it's not clear to RBAK> me that's consistent with the RFC's, and I'd strongly suggest a copy RBAK> of all mail to that address go to the list manager.) See RFC 2142, which codifies this (not that I completely agree with it): 6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop requests and other meta-queries can be sent. For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is: there MUST be the administrative mailbox name: Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo and Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with the software on that system -- usually the name of the software -- rather than a particular list on that system. Use of such mailbox names requires participants to know the type of list software employed at the site. This is problematic. Consequently: LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED, INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE MAILBOX NAMES. Thus, if you run list administration software, it MUST sit at -request. Of course you aren't restricted from sending a copy to the owner, but I run software for the express reason of not having to see all of that mail. And for some reason, this RFC doesn't say anything about where the list owner sits, leaving the situation muddier than before. - J< From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 22:26:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA19103; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA19096 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08557; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA09650; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:17:32 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: spamtools@abuse.net Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:34:04 -0500. X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:17:31 -0700 Message-ID: <9648.897542251@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) wrote: >[Responding only to list-managers, not to spamtools, because I'm not a member > of spamtools.] > >Ron Guilmette laid out his proposal and asked, > >| So? Any comments? > >Yes: how does the proposed central authority make sure that a list whose >owner is attempting to register it is truly opt-in, so that list handles are >not given to spammers and public keys not accepted from them? Since the list >could not actually send mail out until it has been registered and assigned a >handle, the central authority could not monitor the operation of the list >before making a decision. Correct, so the default would necessarily be that requesting parties would be issued new handles and new public/private key pairs on a basically ``no question asked'' basis, except for lists being run from systems or networks or by people who have been known to try to abuse the process in the past (i.e. by registering lists that then later on turn out to be abusive). >Second, suppose a spammer files an application for an opt-in list as a decoy >and gets it registered; what is to stop said spammer from using that regis- >tration on UCE? Nothing, but one would assume that if that occured, then the central authority would be informend of the event very quickly via numerous reports and com- plaints from people who don't like to be spammed. Then would then disable or otherwise remove the registration for said list, and would endeavor to make it difficult or impossible for that same spammer to get a valid list handle and/or authorized public/private key pair in the future. >The registration would be revoked forthwith, but another >email address + another decoy application = another registration. In theory, yes, because as they say, on the Internet nobody know's you're a dog. By that I means that on the Internet new pseudo-identities can pretty much be manufactured frequently and at will. (This problem is really at the heart of spamming as we know it today.) In practice how- ever, my own work on creating and maintaining blacklists of recurrent spam sources leads me to feel very strongly that patterns of repetition _do_ emerge and reveal themselves to any watchful eye with surprising frequency, and that the vast majority of spam comes from a finite and in fact very limited number of networks which can be identified and then denied any further listings for ``authorized'' mailing lists by the central authority. (This is vaguely analogous to what Vixie is doing with his RBL, except that that system is based upon negative blacklisting, rather than affirmative whitelisting, as in the case of the system I have proposed.) -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 22:56:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA19502; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA19495 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA19142; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:52:47 -0500 (CDT) To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 11 Jun 1998 00:52:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Roger B.A. Klorese"'s message of "Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:57:24 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.9/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "RBAK" == Roger B A Klorese writes: RBAK> Nope. Mail to the -request mailbox MUST reach some administrative RBAK> force, whether a human or software. I don't believe that was the intent of the RFC. Otherwise they wouldn't mention Majordomo and Listserv's particular addresses; they'd just say that mail sent to -request has to go somewhere. But they go to the trouble of mentioning that software siting somewhere other than -request is the problem that they're trying to solve, which strongly implies that they want the software at -request. However, I believe that given enough flexibility you can read it either way, which makes the situation even worse. The only solution is to ask those who wrote the RFC, and even then it doesn't become instantly clarified. How did this thing even make it past draft status, anyway? I don't recall any mention of it here or anywhere else. RBAK> The software does NOT have to listen on that address. I believe that is the intention of the section. (Which frankly I don't agree with, which is why I want the thing clarified. But until it is, I will write software that automatically sits at -request.) - J< From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 10 23:41:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA20404; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA20397 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA19649; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:44:14 -0500 (CDT) To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 11 Jun 1998 01:44:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Roger B.A. Klorese"'s message of "Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:00:02 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.9/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "RBAK" == Roger B A Klorese writes: RBAK> I don't see how you could possibly read it the way you do. I'm not the only one; this has come up in majordomo-users and majordomo-workers and honestly I arrived at my current belief after arguing the point with others. Anyway, that's my complaint about 2142: it specifies all kinds of addresses to use in contacting various personnel but neglects to specify unequivocally how to reach list owners (which is, after all, the subject of this thread). And then there's 1211. I've seen arguments stating that it requires that -request go to a human. Sigh. RBAK> If Mj2 MUST run this way, I will not be running it; I get far too RBAK> many human-bound messages at the -request address to consider running RBAK> robots there. That's just the way it (currently) suggests Sendmail aliases; others have talked about figuring out how to make that configuration mandatory (by actually bouncing mail off of the aliases) but I think that would be both a waste of code and needlessly constraining. Given this confusion I'll probably make a site config controlling whether the suggested aliases point -request at the owner or at the list software. This really seems to be the only reasonable choice. - J< From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 00:11:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA20916; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA20908 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA32374 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:04:28 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: "Roger B.A. Klorese"'s message of "Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:57:24 -0700 (PDT)" Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:02:55 -0700 To: Jason L Tibbitts III , "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:52 PM -0700 6/10/98, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I believe that is the intention of the section. (Which frankly I don't > agree with, which is why I want the thing clarified. But until it is, I > will write software that automatically sits at -request.) Which is what I do. but I make sure that -request points a person at an address where a real human can be contacted if necessary. As someone who runs some fairly high-volume sites, the idea that a human being is there to handhold everyone is a laudable, but unrealistic goal. Many users have a tendency to ask for handholding first, and when you have sites with 700+ admin operations a day going on, a certain percentage of them will go sideways. And the admin ends up having to do triage, trying to take care of the stuff that's broke, so the folks who are just in too much of a hurry to do it themselves, well... I try to use automation to help folks figure it out for themselves, but always leave that side door for those that can't or for whom the system just plain old breaks (and it happens). but it's a side door, not the front door, because it honks off a few people to have to deal with a mailbot instead of a human, but it'd honk off many more if my response time were 2-3 weeks instead of 4-5 days, and if I didn't triage admin requests and push people back on the docs, FAQs and the like, that's what'd happen. You can push back too hard, too. It's a fine line and a judgement call. I'm (finally) actively rewriting all my stuff, trying to fine tune it a little better with some months of real-world usage and feedback under its belt. I sometimes get the feeling that the people who write these "thou shalt" docs run one or two lists with 100 users who never change e-mail addresses... It's sorta like folks who cook a burger at home on the grill telling McDonalds how to run their business.... (chalk this up as some long-winded "me too" in Jason's direction...) -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 00:41:30 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA21180; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal.magibox.net (postal.magibox.net [206.26.142.145]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA21173 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [206.28.74.88] (demeter-31.magibox.net [206.28.74.95]) by postal.magibox.net (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id CAA06371; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:28:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: bighouse@mail.magibox.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19693.897429518@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:35:35 -0500 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , spamtools@abuse.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Ken Hooper Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Think about this for a second... The simplest way to filter out all junk >E-mail on any given system which supports a substantial number of different >and independent E-mail accounts/user-IDs would be to write a little routine >in your MTA (or add a front end for your MTA) which simply keeps track of >the number of messages incoming from a given IP address within the past N >minutes (where `N' is some modest number like 30, 60, 120, or 180). Dunno whether this is true but I'm sure you'll never get any but a minority of list owners to implement it without coercing them somehow and that would be wrong. People can't even adhere to a reasonably uniform bounce message format, and there are demonstrable economic and social benefits (selfish ones!) to that, so why would the sea part for this? Another idea, somewhat comparable, is a standard that dictates the format of all automated list subscriptions which would be sent to the individual's ISP, not to the list server, there to have the local ISP automatically take note of the list and allow it through, and forward the request to the list server. Otherwise no BCCed mail or multiple hits. This is a trivial software problem if the standard exists but it never will and if it does people will ignore it especially Microsoft. 8) Show of hands: nope, we don't have a spam problem in any case and no wish to open the list to non-subscribers so we can have the opportunity to pursue all this encryption. 8) --Ken type2.com webmaster "If stupidity hurt like a toothache people might do something about it." --Greg Swann From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 02:11:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA23949; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA23924 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA18288; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:59:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA21760; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:00:46 -0700 To: spamtools@abuse.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:35:35 -0500. X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:00:45 -0700 Message-ID: <21758.897555645@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Ken Hooper wrote: >>Think about this for a second... The simplest way to filter out all junk >>E-mail on any given system which supports a substantial number of different >>and independent E-mail accounts/user-IDs would be to write a little routine >>in your MTA (or add a front end for your MTA) which simply keeps track of >>the number of messages incoming from a given IP address within the past N >>minutes (where `N' is some modest number like 30, 60, 120, or 180). > >Dunno whether this is true but I'm sure you'll never get any but a minority >of list owners to implement it without coercing them somehow... I prefer to call it gentle persuasion. Either sign up or else your mailing list traffic will be rejected by my site as being probable spam. Of course, if we are talking about the monkeys.com domain (total of 1 user) nobody gives a damn. However if AOL decided to do this, or Hotmail, then I think that you would find a lot of list admins getting with the program. >... and that would be wrong. OK. I'll bite. Why? Are mailing list administrators like minor dieties or something? Is there something wrong with asking them to do their part to help end sbulk E-mail spam on the Internet?? >People can't even adhere to a reasonably uniform bounce message >format, and there are demonstrable economic and social benefits (selfish >ones!) to that, so why would the sea part for this? Maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. But most people are so sick of spam that I would think that it would be a much easier sell than you make it out to be. Oh sure, there are always going to be clueless twits that gever get it and who refuse to play, but that doesn't really matter. Critical mass is the key... i.e. getting to the point where most list admins just know, aprori, that ``this is the way things are done nowadays''. >Another idea, somewhat comparable, is a standard that dictates the format >of all automated list subscriptions which would be sent to the individual's >ISP, not to the list server, there to have the local ISP automatically take >note of the list and allow it through, and forward the request to the list >server. Otherwise no BCCed mail or multiple hits. Yup. That would work too, I think. >This is a trivial software problem... Well... maybe not entirely trivial. >... if the standard exists... Why does your alternative idea require any sort of standard?? You could implement it your way on your site, and I could have it implemented in a somewhat different way on my site. And we would both still be happy and both still be protected from spammers. >... but it never will and if it does >people will ignore it especially Microsoft. 8) I actually am beginning to like your idea... perhaps even more than my own. But I still don't see the need for any sort of universal standard here. In short, I think that _your_ idea can probably be implemented without either the help or consent or support of Microsoft. Here's a scenario... I open a new ISP. and I have a mail server setup so that it captures and remembers all _outgoing_ messages addressed to anything that fits one of the following patterns: *-request@* majordomo@* listserv@* listproc@* After this, the relevant recipient domains for these outgoing messages be- come (in effect) whitelisted for sending ``bulk'' mail (i.e. destined for multiple recipients) to my domain/server. All others are, by default, blocked from sending bulk mail to my server, where ``bulk'' is defined as a bunch of messages (more than 20?) coming from your server to my server within some short period of time (say 60 minutes). I can think of several refinements to this basic scheme.... for example remembering who sent mail to which list and checking all inputs against that sort of a table to make sure that people are only getting stuff from lists that they themselves communicated with in the past. If this sort of a thing would _not_ work, then please tell me why. Of course, there is the problem of pre-existing ISPs with bazillions of pre-existing customers who are already signed up to a bazillion or so legitimate lists. Sp you would have to work out some way of getting all of _those_ lists (or most of them anyway) into your local ``whitelisting'' data base for ``bulk mail'' sources before you cut over to the new system. But after that you would just tell your users: ``Hey! If you want to be on XYZ mailing list, then when you subscribe to XYZ, do it by sending your outbound subscription request through our mail servers, and then it will be OK. Otherwise you won't actually get to receive the mailing list traffic.'' >Show of hands: nope, we don't have a spam problem in any case... Eh?? Where do _you_ live?? >... and no wish >to open the list to non-subscribers so we can have the opportunity to >pursue all this encryption. 8) Sorry, I was following you right up until this cryptic comment which I can't even parse into English. Care to try that last part again? -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 04:11:27 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id EAA27444; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA27437 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id NAA14924; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:08:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id NAA24202; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:08:10 +0200 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:08:10 +0200 Message-Id: <199806111108.NAA24202@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: spamtools@abuse.net, List-Managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <19693.897429518@monkeys.com> (rfg@monkeys.com) Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ron Guilmette wrote among other things: > On the receiving end, sites which receive mail to some large number of their > users (say 20 or more) at about the same time from a given IP address would > check the message after the first 20 for the presence of a valid X-Opt-In: Here's a weak point of your proposal IMHO... Someone would write a tool for spammers to allow them to send out their spam with bogus orginating IP addresses (using IP spoofing). -- Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland Backup E-mail address: NB@POBOX.COM Churchplanters E-mail conference, see http://genesis.acu.edu/cplant/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 04:28:27 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id EAA27775; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA27750 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id FAA12412; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:41:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980611054157.A12406@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:41:57 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Jason L Tibbitts III on Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 11:27:54PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 11:27:54PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > See RFC 2142, which codifies this (not that I completely agree with it): > > 6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX > > [...] > > there MUST be the administrative mailbox name: > > I'm as delighted to see this as I dismayed by the number of new mailing lists I've seen announced whose only means of subscribing/unsubscribing is through a web interface. Not that having a web interface is bad; but ONLY having a web interface IS bad, because it locks out the zillions of people, who, for one reason or another (ranging from software support to firewalls to handicaps to bandwidth) have access to mail but not to the web. Not surprisingly, most of these lists seem to be run by relative newbies who think "Internet == web" and to whom the concept that "mailing lists should be accessible via mail" is foreign. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to cut-and-paste that excerpt into a number of pending messages. ;-) ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 05:11:30 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA28377; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA28370 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id IAA06152; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA12423; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:06:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:06:10 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: spamtools@abuse.net cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-Reply-To: <21758.897555645@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > I open a new ISP. and I have a mail server setup so that it captures > and remembers all _outgoing_ messages addressed to anything that > fits one of the following patterns: > > *-request@* > majordomo@* > listserv@* > listproc@* Biggest problem with this idea is that there is a trend towards using web forms for mailing list sign-ups (with email confirmation). If this becomes common practice, you will not have the opportunity to capture the out-bound "subscribe me" data. As for telling your local users that they need to register all list servers or they will not get their in-bound subscriptions, good luck. Most ISP lusers never read the details of policies and such... You'd have to intercept the in-bound list traffic and send a notice to anyone subscribed to an unregistered list. - murr - From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 07:56:50 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA01037; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA01023 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA21884 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:58:45 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980611054157.A12406@gsp.org> References: ; from Jason L Tibbitts III on Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 11:27:54PM -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:28:59 -0700 To: Rich Kulawiec , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 2:41 AM -0700 6/11/98, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > Not that having a web interface is bad; but ONLY having a web > interface IS bad, because it locks out the zillions of people, Not really true any more, Rich. We just did our first web-only signup list at Apple. It's getting 250-300 new subscribers a day. In the last six weeks or so, three folks have complained about a lack of an e-mail interface. A year ago, this wouldn't have been realistic. Now, it is. A lot depends on your audience, but the web is just so pervasive now, you *can* tell someone to go get a web browser. And it's just starting to cause the entire communication paradigm to be rethought. We have plans over the next 18 months to really take advantage of these new technologies and do something much different than "mail list".. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Mail lists are just ONE tool in a communication strategy. Or should be just one tool... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 08:11:27 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA01079; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA01058 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA31618 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:58:46 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <21758.897555645@monkeys.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:31:18 -0700 To: murr rhame , spamtools@abuse.net From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:06 AM -0700 6/11/98, murr rhame wrote: > As for telling your local users that they need to register all list > servers or they will not get their in-bound subscriptions, good luck. Yup. Heck, if someone tries to enforce these things on my site, I'll stop running mail lists. I'll do something else that might look like mail lists a lot, but won't be mail lists. These proposals are nice to talk about, but there's zero enforcement mechanism, so they won't go anywhere. The places that need them most will never hear about them, and evne if you tell them, they'll ignore you. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 08:27:24 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA01111; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA01103 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA03573 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:01:52 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA07920 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:01:51 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806111501.KAA07920@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Ron's idea To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:01:51 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Although I think there may be numerous details to be worked out, I think Ron has the germ of a viable idea going. Some form of public key identifier in a header is the only viable validation scheme I've come up with when I've thought about it. However, I'd like to see the whole concept taken much further, well beyond just mailing list issues. Pardon me while I philosophise online here, and if anyone thought Ron's proposal had a lot of details to be resolved this one has even more! What I think is needed is some kind of central 'transfer of payments' authority for the entire Internet, analagous to what the long distance phone carriers have. (This is a very radical proposal, it probably involves completely restructuring both the packet forwarding and the cost system for the Internet, but that's something that has already happened once in the past few years, more or less by default, this time it would have to happen by conscious design.) Under my idea, EVERY Internet packet would carry a cost with it, to be assumed by either the sending or receiving party and debited against the account. Intermediate carriers could conceivably get a share of this fee, and that fee might ultimately replace many other connect charges. (And if that means that carriers begin to fight over the right to carry traffic, as opposed to the current system where they dont' seem to care much whether they have MY business or not, much like the long distance phone carriers fight for my account, then I see this as a potentially VERY Good Thing.) The trick becomes establishing who is paying for each transaction. Consider a mailng list. In general it would be paid for by the recipient, with each recipient supplying an encrypted validation tag back to the list software, possibly as part of the subscription confirmation process. There could also be examples of mailing lists where the sender pays for the transaction, or even ones where the POSTER of each message pays for its distribution. One problem deals with bounced/forwarded messages, which for sender/author paid transactions could represent a problem and could represent a means of avoiding the accounting for recipient paid messages. I'm not sure how to resolve that one yet. Payment for individual e-mail (not list traffic, so not encoded with a payment validation tag) could be negotiated as part of the SMTP exchange. If I was running a tech support operation, I'd probably be willing to pay the inbound mail fee for every e-mail. Otherwise that fee would have to be paid by the sender, effectively ending the current situation where a spammer can send millions of messages for essentially nothing. If each e-mail costs something, even if as little as 1/100th of a cent, sending a million messages at least costs SOMETHING. And having some kind of payment tag would give mail filters one more thing to use in trying to route traffic or filter out UCE, even if the sender is paying the freight. I think this would even work for relayed or gatewayed messages, because if the mail was tagged as 'recipient must pay for' it would be rejected for non-payment some time before it reached the addressee. There would be some 'lost revenue' for this, but I think it would be a small percentage compared to the amount of properly 'paid for' traffic processed. And there would be a certain amount of administrative traffic to deal with the negotiation for e-mail, but I don't see that as any worse than the current spam problem in terms of bandwidth requirements. Now consider WWW requests. The recpient would pay for the hits requested. This might generate sufficient revenue to the web page owner that information providers might even be able to become self supporting without resorting to annoying advertisements, which seems to me to be the reason that Java applets were created, or at least their most common use. Would I pay 1 cent to get today's 'DILBERT' comic strip? Sure. Would I pay a small fee for the baseball box scores? Sure. And if I don't want to pay for graphics, I make that part of my request, possibly forcing more web designers to THINK about page content. Even though I've got a 64K connection to the net now, I still find far too many pages that take forever to load up because some designer get carried away with graphics, sounds, etc. Things like Realaudio, telnet and USENET traffic get a lot tricker to incorporate into this proposal, in part because I'm reaching the limit of my knowledge about how these work at the packet level. OK, now everybody tell me how crazy I am! -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 08:57:12 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA02910; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.syzygy.co.uk (sun.syzygy.co.uk [195.26.96.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA02903 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neutron.syzygy.co.uk (neutron.syzygy.co.uk [195.26.97.182]) by sun.syzygy.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA29146; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:50:59 +0100 (BST) From: "Kief Morris" To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , , Subject: RE: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:51:04 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bd9550$bd5db800$b6611ac3@neutron.syzygy.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <19693.897429518@monkeys.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > The central mailing list information clearing house would likewise > and inevitably become the subject of heated debate and, most likely, > raging hostility. Although I'm not generally a paranoid anarchist, I object to the idea of making setting up mailing lists a bureaucratic process. Right now anybody and their dog can set up a mailing list without having to go through some kind of application process. Having such a process will discourage grass roots, non-technical, non-official type people from setting up lists. One thing that has always made the Net strong is that anybody can become a publisher. It also opens up the door to those who would like to regulate such things. Once you've decided that it's OK to ban mailing lists for one reason - because of spammers - it's easy to start tacking on new reasons to ban them - next it's software piracy, then child porn, then adult porn, then profanity, then anything anyone finds offensive. This scheme would put the mechanism in place to make this easy to do, and you know politicians will latch onto it. > Let's say that I set this all up next week. Just suppose. Can I see a show > of hands of how many of you mailing list administrators would actually sign > up, get an official handle for your mailing list and get a public/private > encryption key pair? Sorry, not me. Again, the strength of the Net is that it gives power to individuals. Yes, that makes the Net is a messy place, because not all individuals are good or responsible. But I don't like the idea of taking power away from individuals, no matter how benevolent and enlightened the central authority and its purpose. - Kief From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 09:27:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA03561; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA03543 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA15552; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980611121622.A14985@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:16:22 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: ; <19980611054157.A12406@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 07:28:59AM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 07:28:59AM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Not really true any more, Rich. [...] I guess your readership differs from mine; on one mailing list that I handle, roughly 5% of the people have access to mail but not to the web. Locking those people out isn't a viable option (their contributions and their presence are valuable), so I've made sure that they can participate even though they're (mostly) on non-IP networks. My concern (well, one of my concerns) is that the web is so seductive that everyone is falling all over themselves to provide a web interface -- to mailing lists, to news servers, to network management s/w, etc. This is all very glitzy and nice but I find that it serves no real purpose, and in fact may do harm by obscuring the underlying details, an understanding of which is crucial to end users whether they realize it or not. For example, I find that many, many end users are confused by the difference between mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups -- which have similar, but differing standards for content, netiquette, etc. -- because they use a web-based interface that doesn't clearly distinguish between them. This is not to say that these two mediums won't converge and one day be indistinguishable; perhaps they will. But they are at present quite different and client software which obscures this does a disservice to the end user and to the 'net community. --Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 09:42:11 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA03874; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA03867 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA38770 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:32:01 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:15:59 -0700 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >listserv anyway. And most people who are too stupid to put it together >send it to the posting address. I wouldn't use the word stupid. There are stupid users out there, but mostly, it's new/naive users. A lot comes down to handholding and education. >Well, we're at 100+ lists (plus digests plus hidden owner lists), and >about 30,000 aggregated subscriptions -- not huge, but not tiny. Apple is 150 lists with over 100,000 unique addresses subscribed (many to multiple lists. Total subscription base is 150,000). and plaidworks is another 50ish lists with 8,000 subscribers (about 6,000 unique). just for comparison. > And the >number of staggeringly frustrated notes we get a week indicate that the >process has to become RADICALLY simpler... which means both better >engineering and a shorter path to a human. I've been putting a LOT of work into doing just this the last year or so. All my majordomo stuff is front-ended with procmail, and I use procmail to try to help users get what they want done done (redirecting common problems to the right address, for instance), or returning customized messages explaining errors and how to resolve them. I've found that simply returning the Majordomo help file doesn't answer user's questions, so I try to intercept the most common mistakes and send back something customized for that mistake. My sites now have exceptionally low error rates, which is good, but I've still got some warts to clear up. I'm rewriting the rewritten documentation one more time, and doing some major revamping to clear up some issues I have with it. And then I'm going to take 48 hours of e-mail, every bloody piece of it, and track exactly what happens to each piece, to make sure I don't have any hidden staked-pits or black holes, and to make sure the numbers I'm evaluating this beast on are really accurate (for one thing, I can't really judge how many people don't START the subscription process. And I don't have solid numbers on how many send a subscribe, but never follow through on the authorization. I do know how many have problems with the authorization, and that's tiny, but I need better metrics on just how intimidating the mailbacks are. My not-rigid numbers show it's not a major hassle). > List-managers should consider >if they can handle the load under the worst case -- where every subscriber >is a clueless newbie who sends "Dear Mister Domo, what am I doing wrong, I disagree. That's like saying nobody should drive unless they know how to fix anything that might happen to the car along the trip. A driver should be skilled at driving the car and able to handle emergency situations (like changing a flat tire), but if the engine falls out, it falls out. That doesn't mean you shouldn't drive if you can't do a ring-job on it on the expressway.... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + (Hockey fan? ) From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 10:12:19 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA04667; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA04645 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA31292 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:01:46 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:56:19 -0700 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >No, it means you shouldn't estimate your driving time based on best road >conditions, but rather, on near-WORST road conditions. Disagree (still). To beat the analogy into a pulp, you should estimate your driving time based on realistic road conditions -- no sense planning for near-worst road conditions, really. I can't see carrying chains to Reno in July, just in case a blizzard rolls in and closes Truckie pass. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + (Hockey fan? ) From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 10:57:21 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA06354; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id KAA06346 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA19591 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA13392 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:00:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Jason L Tibbitts III cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11 Jun 1998, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I believe that is the intention of the section. (Which frankly I don't > agree with, which is why I want the thing clarified. But until it is, I > will write software that automatically sits at -request.) I don't see how you could possibly read it the way you do. If Mj2 MUST run this way, I will not be running it; I get far too many human-bound messages at the -request address to consider running robots there. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 11:11:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA06329; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id KAA06319 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA18838 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA11959 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:57:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Jason L Tibbitts III cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10 Jun 1998, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is: > > > > there MUST be the administrative mailbox name: > > > > LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED, > INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE > MAILBOX NAMES. > > Thus, if you run list administration software, it MUST sit at -request. Nope. Mail to the -request mailbox MUST reach some administrative force, whether a human or software. The software does NOT have to listen on that address. And, in the absence of any clear knowledge about how to reach a human, the only address to which one can communicate is the -request address, it is therefore obvious that all mail to that address should either (a) reach a human or (b) state very clearly and very early on how to do so. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 11:26:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA07087; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA07079 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA14852; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03598; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:16:05 -0700 To: Norbert Bollow cc: spamtools@abuse.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:08:10 +0200. <199806111108.NAA24202@pythagoras> X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:16:05 -0700 Message-ID: <3596.897588965@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199806111108.NAA24202@pythagoras>, you wrote: >Ron Guilmette wrote among other things: > >> On the receiving end, sites which receive mail to some large number of their >> users (say 20 or more) at about the same time from a given IP address would >> check the message after the first 20 for the presence of a valid X-Opt-In: > >Here's a weak point of your proposal IMHO... Someone would write a tool for >spammers to allow them to send out their spam with bogus orginating IP >addresses (using IP spoofing). At the present time, and despite the already considerable incentives to do so, there are no known spammers attempting to do IP spoofing. I see no reason why that would change if my rather simple idea were put into practice. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 11:41:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA07034; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA06997 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA14784; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03575; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:14:26 -0700 To: spamtools@abuse.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:05:55 -0400. X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:14:25 -0700 Message-ID: <3573.897588865@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Daniel Reed wrote: >On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >) Of course, if we are talking about the monkeys.com domain (total of 1 user) >) nobody gives a damn. However if AOL decided to do this, or Hotmail, then >) I think that you would find a lot of list admins getting with the program. >I think that's disgusting. That's almost sorta kinda like "if you want to >sell one computer with Windows, you have to sell them all with Windows," >except in this case it's not so "bad." There's a big difference. In one case, the goal is just to make Bill Gates richer than he already is. In the case of what I proposed however, the goal is to rid the Internet of bulk E-mail spam while leaving all of the *legitimate* mailing lists still standing. >) >... and that would be wrong. >) OK. I'll bite. Why? >) >) Are mailing list administrators like minor dieties or something? >Taken in context, absolutely! >I run over 60 mailing lists on narnia, and I'll be damned before I let >some half-twit (either at monkeys.com or aol.com) tell me I have to have >my mailing lists added to some list before their users will be able to >participate. Hummm... Fiesty, aren't we? >The correct answer to "I can't subscribe to your mailing list because my >ISP has some blocking thing setup" is "get a decent ISP." That's swell, except for it doesn't do anything to cutrail the bulk E-mail spam problem. Are you pro-spam? OK, OK. It's a retorical question, but you get my drift. Bulk E-mail spam has changed the nature of the net forever and there is no going back. *Somebody* is going to have to make some small sacrafices in order for us to get rid of this crap, and it may (unfortunately) end up being the owners and operators of legitimate mailing lists. Look, the one distinguishing, unmistakable, unambiguous, and consistant characteristic of all bulk E-mail spam is *bulk*. So obviously, that is the distinguishing characteristic that we need to use if we have any hopes of killing it all via fully automated means. This should not be hard to do. If you are a receiving site, and if you see ``bulk'' coming in, you just kill it. Technically, that is a piece of cake to do. The problem is that innumerable _legitimate_ mailing lists operate on the basis of bulk mailing also. So there has to be some way to let them in, while keeping the spammers out. So how can we do that? We *cannot* get all of the spammers to do anything special to distinguish *their* mailings from those of legitimate opt-in mailing lists, so we may just end up having to ask the owners and operators of all legitimate mailing lists to do some really minor amount of work in order to distinguish themselves as being legitimate... preferebly in an unforgable way (such as what I described). You may not like it but that may be the future. You may not like it, but this may perhaps be the _only_ complete solution to the E-mail spam problem. I mean geeezzzz... It isn't as if I was telling you that you were going to have to pay money in order to continue to run your legitimate lists! That _ain't_ what I was proposing. >)Is there >) something wrong with asking them to do their part to help end sbulk E-mail >) spam on the Internet?? >I find that emailing the full message and full headers to >abuse@THEIRDIRECTUPSTREAMPROVIDER usually works absolutely wonderfully. >Even AGIS responds to my messages [sometimes]. That's swell, except that there are many others who don't respond in any meaningful way. Compuserve is one. UUnet is another. AT&T is another. Shall I go on? (I have a rather long list.) -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 11:42:06 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA08086; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neviim.torah.org (neviim.torah.org [207.239.101.202]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA08079 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (brozen@localhost) by neviim.torah.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA00531; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:43:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:43:50 +0300 (IDT) From: Brock Rozen Reply-To: Brock Rozen To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Backup: Disable X-URL: http://www.torah.org/~brozen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > I don't see how you could possibly read it the way you do. If Mj2 MUST > run this way, I will not be running it; I get far too many human-bound > messages at the -request address to consider running robots there. Just for your knowledge -- this is how Mj1 runs as well. You have the option of turning the -request addresses on or off...but when on, they are for machine-bound messages. ---------------------------------- | Brock Rozen | brozen@torah.org | ---------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 11:53:28 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA07831; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA07807 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA40582 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:37:58 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:36:25 -0700 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:13 AM -0700 6/11/98, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: >OK, try "pessimistic rational assumptions." "30-50% of all subscription >attempts will need manual assistance" is pessimistic but rational. Um, my server rate for assistance is under 1%. Heck, my entire error rate is under 1%.. If it suddenly jumps to 30%, it's because my hard disk crashed or something. Planning for a number that high is unrealistic and unnecessary. And it'd require adding headcount, and there are better places to put the money it'd cost, given that the chances of actually needed to use it is pretty close to zero. It's pessimistic, but not rational. In reality, if there's a problem THAT severe on my site, response time would simply drag out, and I'd stop sleeping for a while. I think it's important to plan for when things go spung, but also to plan realistically. You're still thinking in terms of carrying chains to Reno in July. Which this year, might actually happen, but that's a different discussion.... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + (Hockey fan? ) From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 11:56:27 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA08336; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA08327 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA18949; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:51:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980611145106.A18905@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:51:06 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Roger B.A. Klorese on Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 11:00:02PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 11:00:02PM -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > I don't see how you could possibly read it the way you do. If Mj2 MUST > run this way, I will not be running it; I get far too many human-bound > messages at the -request address to consider running robots there. What I have always told people (and perhaps I have been wrong to do so) is that listname-request@foo.bar will get you to someONE or someTHING that will honor administrative requests and that listname-owner@foo.bar will get you to someONE. I also support owner-listname@foo.bar (which I don't happen to like because it doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the -request convention, but which some people seem to go looking for). ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 12:42:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA11037; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA11022 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21032; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA06030; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:33:10 -0700 To: spamtools@abuse.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:51:04 +0100. <000601bd9550$bd5db800$b6611ac3@neutron.syzygy.co.uk> X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:33:10 -0700 Message-ID: <6028.897593590@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <000601bd9550$bd5db800$b6611ac3@neutron.syzygy.co.uk>, "Kief Morris" wrote: >> The central mailing list information clearing house would likewise >> and inevitably become the subject of heated debate and, most likely, >> raging hostility. > >Although I'm not generally a paranoid anarchist, I object to the idea of >making setting up mailing lists a bureaucratic process. Right now anybody and >their dog can set up a mailing list without having to go through some kind >of application process. Right. And therein lies the problem. As you may have noticed, there are a LOT of _irresponsible_ people running around on the net these days setting up abusive opt-opt mailing lists. They generally are lumped under the major heading of ``spammers''. >Having such a process will discourage grass roots, >non-technical, non-official type people from setting up lists. It will also discourage spammers from spamming, which is the whole point. Others (it is hoped) will be undeterred. >One thing >that has always made the Net strong is that anybody can become a publisher. Yes, and as long as they *don't* do it right in my face (or in my mailbox) and without my consent, I have no problem with that. But it is undeniable that we _do_ have a problem in the Internet with people who want to publish in a irresponsible in-your-face kind of way and is abusive. There is no doubt about that. Now the only question is ``How do we control THEM without getting to much in the way of other, legitimate publishers who use legiti- mate non-abusive mailing lists?'' >It also opens up the door to those who would like to regulate such things. >Once you've decided that it's OK to ban mailing lists for one reason - >because of spammers - it's easy to start tacking on new reasons to ban >them... Well, since you mentioned it, yes. The one other criteria that _I_ would use to decide which lists are legit and which ones aren't is that the list must also use a default-negative- response subscription validation protocol. (I have ranted at length about the evils of subscription bombing attacks on the list-managers list frequently in that past, so I won't repeat myself on that subject taodya, but I will just say that I considerd all mailing lists that fail to have a responsible subscription validation protocol in place are a danger to themselves and to others and ought rightly to be excluded from the polite parts of net-society.) > - next it's software piracy, then child porn, then adult porn, then >profanity, then anything anyone finds offensive. Sorry. I for one am not buying this ``slippery slope'' argument. It has been pointed out time and time again (in various mailing lists and newsgroups) that abuse _on_ the net is a very different thing than abuse _of_ the net. Spam and mailbombing and subscription bombing are forms of abuse *of* the net. Profanity and/or calling someone else a bad name may be considered abusive by some, but these things are clearly not going to degrade the usability of the medium itself, whereas spam and mailbombing _do_ have that effect. >This scheme would put >the mechanism in place to make this easy to do, and you know politicians >will latch onto it. No. I don't know any such thing. Most of them can't find their keyboards with both hands and most haven't the vaguest idea what we online folks do here on the net, so I have no reason to believe that they would suddenly take some morbid interest in mailing lists and how they operate on the net. >> Let's say that I set this all up next week. Just suppose. Can I see a show >> of hands of how many of you mailing list administrators would actually sign >> up, get an official handle for your mailing list and get a public/private >> encryption key pair? > >Sorry, not me. > >Again, the strength of the Net is that it gives power to individuals. Yes, >that makes the Net is a messy place, because not all individuals are good or >responsible. If it were just messyness, then nobody would give a damn. Unfortunately, E-mail spam clearly contains the potential to make the entire worldwide E-mail system completely *unusable* for anything *except* bulk junk advertising. >But I don't like the idea of taking power away from individuals, The idea I put forward wouldn't really have the effect of taking away anyone's liberty. You would still be allowed to scream your bloody lungs out in the wilderness, but nobody might be listening when you do... in particular if you refuse to follow any of the standard protocols of polite discourse and discussions that are acceptable by the rest of society. This is no different from saying that yes, you *can* try to run a mailing list which always sends mail out on port 17025 (rather than port 25) but it then bomes likely that you won't garner much of an audience. Still, you are free to make the choice to defy convention if you like. Be my guest. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 13:26:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA12763; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA12756 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA03122; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:18:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA26372; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:18:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:18:48 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: Norbert Bollow , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-Reply-To: <3596.897588965@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk spamtools@abuse.net removed from Cc: list. I'm not subscribed. On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > At the present time, and despite the already considerable incentives > to do so, there are no known spammers attempting to do IP spoofing. > I see no reason why that would change if my rather simple idea were > put into practice. On a related note, it is extremely rare that I get spam that appears to be sent via conventional mailing list software (MajorDomo, ListServ, ListProc, Lyris, etc.). Spammers certainly could make their email look like mailing list distributions. For now, they rarely do this. The only significant comparison that comes to mind is that some list servers use multiple recipients... Why all the fuss about creating special privileges for mailing lists? Doesn't seem like this would lead to the prevention a lot of spam. - murr - From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 13:56:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA13744; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA13737 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA26455; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA08159; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:52:11 -0700 To: spamtools@abuse.net cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: [spamtools] Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:18:10 -0500. <199806111918.OAA11049@nuinfo.nwu.edu> X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:52:11 -0700 Message-ID: <8157.897598331@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199806111918.OAA11049@nuinfo.nwu.edu>, you wrote: >It might be feasible to get public key signing of list messages >folded into new releases of some list software... Or maybe into a forthcoming RFC (?) >... But there would be a sigificant time lag getting it adopted. Yes. >The particular scheme you suggest sounded like it might be possible >for a spammer to subscribe to a real list and re-use its >authetication header on spam, since you are only signing the >Date: header, not the message body... No, because the spammer would not actually ever be in possesion of the _true_ list owner's private key. Thus, he could not properly encript the date/timestamp so that it would properly decrypt with the corresponding public key. >There's also the question ITAR and cyptography; though I think >this can be bypassed if you can use a scheme that can only >be used for signing and not for encryption. History has shown that export from the U.S. is rarely if ever necessary with these sorts of things. You just get someone in some less anal location than the U.S. (e.g. Europe) to write the code and put it up on an FTP site there and then we Americans can _import_ it rather than exporting it. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 17:41:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA18294; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA18280 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA41176 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:33:00 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980611121622.A14985@gsp.org> References: ; from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 07:28:59AM -0700 ; <19980611054157.A12406@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:28:01 -0700 To: Rich Kulawiec , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > This is all very glitzy and nice but I find that it serves no real > purpose, and in fact may do harm by obscuring the underlying details, > an understanding of which is crucial to end users whether they realize > it or not. I find it serves a major purpose -- the purpose being that we stop thinking in terms of fitting information into a transport layer, and start making information available the way the user wants it. If that's email, great. If it's web, great. If that's NNTP, great. The point is, stop thinking of e-mail as an entity unto itself, and start realizing it's just one way to communicate. Some ways it's the better way, some ways it's not. but more important, set things up so that the user gets the info the way the user wants the info. > This is not to say that these two mediums won't converge and one > day be indistinguishable; perhaps they will. They will and are. Although frankly, USENET is dead, although NNTP is still quite useful. that's a distinction people miss... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 19:11:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA20006; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA19998 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id UAA21419; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980611202224.A21413@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:22:24 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List Managers Subject: Re: Ron's idea References: <199806111501.KAA07920@celery.tssi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806111501.KAA07920@celery.tssi.com>; from Mike Nolan on Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 10:01:51AM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 10:01:51AM -0500, Mike Nolan wrote: > What I think is needed is some kind of central 'transfer of payments' > authority for the entire Internet, analagous to what the long distance > phone carriers have. This would kill the 'net. If you think the arguments we have over things like control of DNS are bad, the outright wars that would erupt over this would make those look like minor skirmishes. And that`s without even getting into the technical details of implementing this, a nightmare that I don't even want to think about. It's been discussed before -- and among other things, folks have pointed out that the web would never have evolved if this had been in place. No, I don't think you're crazy. But I don't think it's necessary or advisable to change the cooperative model of how the 'net works, and I *certainly* don't want to change it in response to the abusive behavior of spammers, a move I'd consider tantamount to admitting that they've won -- I'd rather pursue and destroy them instead. Which reminds me... ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 19:42:45 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA20757; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA20748 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11081 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:43:09 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA16889 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:43:07 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806120243.VAA16889@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:43:07 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > I find it serves a major purpose -- the purpose being that we stop > thinking in terms of fitting information into a transport layer, and > start making information available the way the user wants it. If that's > email, great. If it's web, great. If that's NNTP, great. The point is, > stop thinking of e-mail as an entity unto itself, and start realizing > it's just one way to communicate. I agree with this, but only up to a point. The problem is net bandwidth is still an exhaustible resource, and one that we list managers (or for most of us, our ISP's) have to pay more for as usage increases. HTML encoded posts, to use one example, are generally more than TWICE the number of bytes of text-only posts. And I find that a total waste of bandwidth if all it does is convert text int 14 point Times Roman with a few words in bold face. > They will and are. Although frankly, USENET is dead, although NNTP is > still quite useful. that's a distinction people miss... Like Bob Hope, and before him Mark Twain, announcing the death of net news is still somewhat premature. With over 500,000 posts a day, it is hardly dying, though like Diamond Jim Brady it may eventually collapse from its own weight. Though Chuq is right that the original modem-based USENET software (Bnews and Cnews) has little relevance in today's higher speed NNTP based world. However, I believe that in the minds of most net users, including those of us who date back to Bnews days or even earlier, the term USENET applies equally to both forms, and Chuq is himself guilty of confusing the transport layer with the application layer here. The problem is neither mailing lists nor web sites are an equivalent resource to USENET, at least not yet. If I want to research something, looking through the past 30 days or so worth of USENET posts on the subject is often a more potent source of information than trying to wade through the dozens of invalid or duplicate pointers I get with most web searches. And for finding a group of people with similar interests quickly, it's still hard to beat, and there are still quite a few subjects for which USENET groups exist but no mailing lists. And though web-based discussion forums are getting better, too many are unwieldy, poorly organized, or have uncontrolled content. But both mailing lists and USENET are just isolated aspects of this new and still evolving communications medium, and ones which may eventually be supplanted by something else. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 19:56:39 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA21001; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA20994 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11218; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:59:07 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA16925; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806120259.VAA16925@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Ron's idea (and mine) To: rsk@gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <19980611202224.A21413@gsp.org> from "Rich Kulawiec" at Jun 11, 98 08:22:24 pm Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote: > It's been discussed before -- and among other things, folks have pointed > out that the web would never have evolved if this had been in place. Not any more than the existence of long distance phone charges inhibited the spread of fax machines. It might even have STIMULATED the entry of information providers into the marketplace, which might well have forced the HTML standard to grow up faster than it did. (If, in fact, it has grown up yet, but that's a subject for a different mailing list.) > No, I don't think you're crazy. But I don't think it's necessary > or advisable to change the cooperative model of how the 'net works, > and I *certainly* don't want to change it in response to the abusive > behavior of spammers, a move I'd consider tantamount to admitting > that they've won -- I'd rather pursue and destroy them instead. Actually, I got interested in this idea less as a means of controlling spammers than as a more equitable means of paying for and thus allocating scarce net resources. Your phone service isn't fixed rate, neither is your gas service, your electric service, or your grocery bill. You pay for what you use. Why is that a bad thing for the Internet, just because it isn't the way it used to be? -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 20:11:27 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA21465; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA21458 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id XAA22553; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980611231231.A22398@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:12:31 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ron's idea (and mine) References: <19980611202224.A21413@gsp.org> <199806120259.VAA16925@celery.tssi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806120259.VAA16925@celery.tssi.com>; from Mike Nolan on Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 09:59:03PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 09:59:03PM -0500, Mike Nolan wrote: > Not any more than the existence of long distance phone charges inhibited > the spread of fax machines. Apples and oranges. There aren't tens of millions of fax machines out there operated by individuals/organizations/companies/governments which will *supply* information to you on demand. Why not? Because very few people can afford the expense of providing information to the entire planet via the telephone system. I'll also note that at least where I live, the telco (Bell Atfrantic) has set rates far in excess of the actual cost of providing the service. Since they have an effective monopoly, there's no incentive for them not to. I strongly believe that attempting to impose the telco charging model ("settlements") on the 'net would (a) create effective monopolies not unlike the telcos and (b) represents an attempt to apply an obsolete notion of commerce to a new medium that doesn't need it. > Actually, I got interested in this idea less as a means of controlling > spammers than as a more equitable means of paying for and thus allocating > scarce net resources. Just exactly what scarce net resources are those? And if we were able to stop the abuses, would they still be scarce? I've seen estimates that 40% to 70% of Usenet traffic is spam; I'd say that wiping that out would recoup a lot of CPU cycles, bandwidth and disk space not just on the servers which handle Usenet news, but on all the other machines involved in shuffling it around -- right down to the end-clients. I wonder how much backbone traffic is spam (mail)? I wonder how much 'net traffic could be alleviated by the use of proxy caching web servers? Or by judicious use of mailing list exploders? And so on. I think the only reason any resources are scarce at the moment is that they are either being horribly abused or used very inefficiently. Well-known solutions exist for both cases, without requiring the imposition of an inappropriate economic model. To answer your final question, I don't oppose this because "it hasn't always been this way". In nearly two decades on the 'net, I've adapted to a lot of things that *weren't* always this way; I'm usually one of people pushing for changes long before anyone else even sees what needs to be changed. I oppose it because I think it's a bad idea. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 21:12:19 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA22306; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from triceratops.com (triceratops.com [206.83.162.235]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id UAA22299 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:59:00 -0700 (PDT) From: johnjohn@triceratops.com Received: (qmail 1332 invoked by uid 100); 12 Jun 1998 03:59:55 -0000 Message-ID: <19980612035955.1331.qmail@triceratops.com> Subject: IMHO To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:59:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk A spam definition which is so broad as to require a registry of legit mailing lists falls into the "poor" catagory. John -- John White Triceratops Admin johnjohn@triceratops.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 21:26:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA22509; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA22502 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA19666 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:16:49 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806120216.WAA23320@polya.mts.jhu.edu> References: Your message of "Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:28:01 PDT." Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:01:20 -0700 To: Bill Bogstad , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:16 PM -0700 6/11/98, Bill Bogstad wrote: > Before changing one of the dimensions of a system consider what the > subtle effects might be on how people will use it. I don't think >it's obvious > and would suggest doing this by comparing paired technologies that only vary > in that dimension. It's not obvious. I've been working on various aspects of it for over a year now, in fact, putting together future plans for Apple. it's definitely not something you can just throw e-mail out on a list and have a definitive answer over. It's also, though, not something I'm at liberty to go into detail on at this time, but I did want to note that these aren't exactly new concepts for me, and I'm not exactly talking off the cuff. A good amount of work has been done looking at how users use this stuff, how they'd like to, what the technologies are good at (and bad at), and how they might well interact. And it's starting to go from whiteboard babble to actual "stuff". There's at least one commercial group working on this stuff, too, and if it does what I think it'll do, it'll be a kicker. It wasn't so long ago that ascii files, gopher and ftp was "good enough" for sharing files and information. Now look. And the changes that drove that paradigm shift are starting to work into other technologies as well. Mail lists are, and will continue to be, an important part of the strategy, but not the only one, or even a key one. It's the old hammer/nail thing again. Spend most of your time with a hammer in your hand, and you think everything's a nail. My job at one level is to build the toolbox, but at a more basic level, I'm architecting the house that the users will live in... And the users don't care about hammers or screwdrivers or saws, or whether it's nails or screws or glue. They care that the house is livable and well-built. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 21:35:29 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA22429; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA22422 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA11983; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:08:18 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA17667; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:08:18 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806120408.XAA17667@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Ron's idea (and mine) To: rsk@gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:08:18 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <19980611231231.A22398@gsp.org> from "Rich Kulawiec" at Jun 11, 98 11:12:31 pm Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote: > I'll also note that at least where I live, the telco (Bell Atfrantic) has > set rates far in excess of the actual cost of providing the service. Somewhat irrelevant, since ISP's aren't a monopoly much of anywhere, nor are the net backbones. And your local telco doesn't set the majority of long distance rates, which is the transfer of payments system I would model, they just get a small piece of the action for providing the local loop. > Just exactly what scarce net resources are those? Bandwidth and money. Ever price a T-3 net connection? It made my teeth chatter! > And if we were able to stop the abuses, would they still be scarce? I think so. I've seen my own network brought to its knees just with FTP and web traffic on numerous occasions, and I remember the days when one could often get FTP tranfer rates in excess of 100Kbytes/second, on one occasion I got that between Nebraska and Japan! > I've seen estimates that 40% to 70% of Usenet traffic is spam Not in the newsgroups I follow, perhaps it is more like 5% there. In other newsgroups, maybe it is worse. I think a greater problem on USENET is flaming and other forms of net abuse. (But that's getting off topic.) I've not seen any estimates of net traffic loads that I have much faith in, but I would suspect that WWW traffic makes up the largest segment these days, with things like Realaudio gaining ground fast. (I've seen what happens when a mere 2000 football fans try to tune in to the Nebraska realaudio site, it isn't very pretty.) It seems to me that if spam and other forms of net abuse are to be controlled, there are only a few basic techniques that will work. Peer pressure doesn't seem to be working, I'm not sure that there is a viable purely technical solution, and as far as I can figure that leaves only central control (Ron's idea) or economic rationality (my idea). Of the two, I'll take economics over a central authority any time, any where! It is nice to have a discussion wherein radically different viewpoints can be aired without resorting to questioning each other's ancestry, though. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 21:41:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA22700; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:27:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kirkwood.hoosier.net (kirkwood.hoosier.net [206.106.64.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA22693 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (lev@localhost) by kirkwood.hoosier.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA26530; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:30:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:30:21 -0500 (EST) From: P Kayak X-Sender: lev@kirkwood.hoosier.net To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Rich Kulawiec , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > This is all very glitzy and nice but I find that it serves no real > > purpose, and in fact may do harm by obscuring the underlying details, > > an understanding of which is crucial to end users whether they realize > > it or not. > > I find it serves a major purpose -- the purpose being Rich's sentence that glitzy www "serves no real purpose" was a bit extreme. However I agree with his post. Am very surprised to hear you saying virtually all people with SMTP have a browser handy wherever they are. Some LANs have limited bandwidth; where the only way a person gets out is with text. (1) Virtually no registered complaints, does *not* prove (2) people aren't getting frustrated. It does not prove no one's getting passed by. Numerous individuals in my community, at their handiest PC have less than full iNET access. Where I am is not THAT peculiar. They may be, yes, part of a minority at large somewhat under 10%; but your reasoning at some points is like, "With our 90%, we've GOT what we need. Forget about those alternative funny-looking ones." Many of us in the IT community have prided ouselves in keeping a door open for moderately-small peculiar groups. I can't be sure I've understood what you have meant to say certainly. What I've seen in print here though, is pretending. Sorry for the language; just trying to make my point. I've always in the past had to agree w y'r posts. Paul To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man. : - Oliver Wendell Holmes : :_Nine Stories_, JDSalinger=**** ..................................: From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 21:56:28 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA23415; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA23401 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA24492 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:45:51 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:44:31 -0700 To: P Kayak , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: Rich Kulawiec , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:30 PM -0700 6/11/98, P Kayak wrote: > extreme. However I agree with his post. Am very surprised to hear you > saying virtually all people with SMTP have a browser handy wherever they > are. Why? Because it's not a popular or traditional view? > Some LANs have limited bandwidth; where the only way a person gets out > is with text. > > (1) Virtually no registered complaints, does *not* prove (2) people aren't > getting frustrated. It does not prove no one's getting passed by. There are no 100% solutions. Not even email lists. Really. So the question is knowing your community and how best to serve them. Are people getting passed by? sure. There are people who have trouble signing up for mail lists, too, although I've worked hard to minimize that, too. And my user base is more than happy to let me know if I've split an infinitive in my documentation. I feel pretty safe that if significant numbers of them were being locked out, I'd hear about that, too. > part of a minority at large somewhat under 10%; but your reasoning at some > points is like, "With our 90%, we've GOT what we need. Forget about those > alternative funny-looking ones." Well, my number's a lot higher than 90%, but at some level that's true. again, there are simply not 100% solutions. It's stupid to lock people out unneccesarily. it's ALSO stupid to give up useful technology advances in the name of empowering increasingly tiny percentages of your user base, especially if those people don't particularly care in the first place... > Sorry for the language; just trying to make my point. I've always in the > past had to agree w y'r posts. No prob. But... There are always casualties when technology paradigms shift. If only because some folks choose to stay behind. I have nothing against the Amish, and have a lot of respect for them -- but I personally wouldn't choose to live like them. Neither do I feel, despite almost 20 years of Internet and mail list operation, beholden to continue operating lists the way we've done it all that time, just because that's how we've done it. I don't run a gopher server any more, either. It's stupid to throw out what you have just because it's old -- but it's also wrong to NOT replace it when technology and societal changes make replacing it appropriate. Someone has to look forward and break trail, and that's what I'm doing. And whenever someone goes new places, there are always people telling us not to go because we'll get eaten by a bear. maybe I will. But I'll enjoy the scenery along the way. And if this stuff works, everyone will benefit. And if not, people will still learn from it, I hope, and figure out how to improve it the next time someone breaks a trail. But things have changed on the net, and technologies have matured (and are maturing as we speak) in ways that make me convinced it's time to start working on the net "thing". Use what you're comfortable with. Use what works. There's no reason not to, but don't be closed to change when it makes sense. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 22:11:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA24405; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA24397 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA24344 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:11:17 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806120408.XAA17667@celery.tssi.com> References: <19980611231231.A22398@gsp.org> from "Rich Kulawiec" at Jun 11, 98 11:12:31 pm Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:00:23 -0700 To: nolan@tssi.com, rsk@gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ron's idea (and mine) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:08 PM -0700 6/11/98, Mike Nolan wrote: > > I've seen estimates that 40% to 70% of Usenet traffic is spam > > Not in the newsgroups I follow, perhaps it is more like 5% there. The latest numbers from the spam trackers was that about 33% of usenet is traffic, 33% spam, and 33% spam-cancels from the spambots. That was on reason why they tried the spam-cancel moratorium, because the firehose was not only not putting out the fire, but was washing away the house. > there are only a few basic techniques that will work. Peer pressure doesn't > seem to be working, and it never really did, except when the net was small enough that everyone more or less knew each other. Cooperative systems only work as long as everyone agrees to cooperate. > I'm not sure that there is a viable purely technical > solution, and as far as I can figure that leaves only central control technical solutions do work. Look at some of the filtering software going onto USENET. Individual sites can start making decisions for themselves, which I think is far superior than central control. But beyond that, there is another option. In fact, it's an option that many of us have already taken, even if we don't realize it. Balkanization. When Usenet grew too large and imploded, what'd many of us do? Wander back to mail lists. Usenet is the "global village". That concept is bogus, and always was. Mail lists are a bunch of isolated villages, all attached to a greater or lesser degree to the information superhighway via offramps. We're all building smaller villages in the suburbs. The trick isn't to try to fix things on a global scale, because it won't work, but to build LOTS of little villages, each of which works independently, and each of which is of a size that CAN be controlled, either by peer pressure, by central authority, or by building walls and hiring guards for the door. We've been balkanizing for years, building offramps and putting up signs that say 'eat at joes' along the highway. The problem with balkanization is helping people find out that you exist, so they can find you. And the portal sites, among other reigistries, are handling that part (to greater, or usually, lesser, levels of success. The most successful advertising is still word of mouth or personal referral, just like in real life). Don't try to build one big thing and make it work right for everyone. Silly concept. Build lots of little things, and let people choose the things they want to be part of. The whole global village thing, where we're all one big happy family (hah!) really causes people to look at this the wrong way, and try to build th wrong solutions. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 22:16:56 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA24372; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA24365 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA24350 ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:11:20 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806120243.VAA16889@celery.tssi.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:09:52 -0700 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:43 PM -0700 6/11/98, Mike Nolan wrote: > I agree with this, but only up to a point. The problem is net bandwidth > is still an exhaustible resource, and one that we list managers (or for > most of us, our ISP's) have to pay more for as usage increases. Agreed. One rason why a lot of my focus is on ways of increasing the efficiency of the information transferred. Mail lists are a push technology. They're more efficient than usenet, which is the ultimate in push technlogies (send every by to every computer in case ANY person on ANY computer wants to view it, just in case), but there are ways to improve that efficiency further, both through building ways to let a user further refine the granularity of the information retrieved, and to build in things like HTML-click-in table of contents instead of sending the entire message. I'm not saying make these things mandatory, but there are a lot of things we can do to improve ease of use and cut bandwidth overhead while ADDING flexibility to the end user. > > They will and are. Although frankly, USENET is dead, although NNTP is > > still quite useful. that's a distinction people miss... > > Like Bob Hope, and before him Mark Twain, announcing the death of net news > is still somewhat premature. With over 500,000 posts a day, it is hardly > dying, No, USENET is dead. Like a huge dinosaur with its head cut off, it's still running around stomping things becuase the rear end hasn't ifgured out it's time to fall over. Size and volume are not measures of USABILTY. Yes, there's lots of stuff in it. How much of it is usable? > NNTP based world. However, I believe that in the minds of most net users, > including those of us who date back to Bnews days or even earlier, the term > USENET applies equally to both forms, and Chuq is himself guilty of > confusing the transport layer with the application layer here. Not at all. I define USENET as that thing out there we read with our news readers. You're trying, I think, to protect me from taking a stand I heartily want to take -- that USENET as a communications scheme has grown to the point where the noise overwhelms all. It continues to operate, but not necessarily function. A semantical difference, but a key one. > And though web-based discussion forums are getting better, too many are > unwieldy, poorly organized, or have uncontrolled content. Same can be said for many mailing lists, of course. Wtih missing list admins or admins who don't believe in policing content -- it's not the technology, but the implementation and how it's cared for. > But both mailing lists and USENET are just isolated aspects of this new > and still evolving communications medium, and ones which may eventually > be supplanted by something else. And that's what I'm working on. "something else". Someone's gotta, if we want it to happen some day. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 11 23:35:13 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA25985; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bbfm.di.com (bbfm.di.com [209.64.54.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA25978 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.di.com(209.64.54.3) by bbfm.di.com for on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:24:27 -0700 Received: by EXCHANGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:24:02 -0700 Message-ID: From: Todd Day To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Subject: RE: Spam Filtering and Messy Details Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:23:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >It's a retorical question, but you get my drift. Bulk E-mail >spam has changed the nature of the net forever and there is no going back. >*Somebody* is going to have to make some small sacrafices in order for >us to get rid of this crap, and it may (unfortunately) end up being the >owners and operators of legitimate mailing lists. One of the hard lessons in life is that in a free society, you must continually fight to defend your freedom. While your proposal has many positives, at the core, it is a throwback to a centrally managed system that is the antithesis of the promise of the Internet. As such, it is doomed to failure. I think each site is going to have to approach SPAM filtering their own way. Let me describe what I am doing to fight SPAM at my site and on my e-mail lists. Not only do I manage and moderate a few e-mail lists, I also take care of e-mail connectivity for the company I work at. We've been hard hit here by SPAM since many employees were quite active on Usenet and investment lists the second we got on the Net. I considered it a challenge to block or blunt the attempts of SPAMmers to sneak advertisements into our company. I went out and read up on all the cool new features of Sendmail 8.8.8 and installed a four level SPAM blocking system in our sendmail.cf. I used the information found in Ron's handy blacklist to seed my database of sites to block or deflect. This action cut down on about 40% of our inbound SPAM. I then went out and found the SPAMCAN patches for Sendmail. These have been a godsend. I patched SPAMCAN so that it still forwards the e-mail to the intended person, but puts a special SPAMtag into the first line of the message. I then taught the employees how to write a filter to remove these marked messages from their Inbox and into a separate folder for them to peruse at their leisure. I did this because I'm afraid of someone sending a legitimate message subject of, "I have tons of $$$$ and I want to buy your products" - I don't want to accidentally trashcan a message like that! (The $$$$$ can set off the filters since it is used in the Subject line by a lot of SPAMmers.) Even though the employees still look over the SPAM (most can be deleted simply by looking at the >From or Subject lines), they don't seem to mind because the messages don't appear in their Inbox. It feels like a small victory. This worked pretty well, but then started to not work so well. The SPAMmers were changing tactics and headers and Internet providers and more were making it through my filters. What to do? The third weapon in my arsenal is a public folder I created called "Junk Mail". Whenever an employee finds some SPAM that did manage to bypass my traps and is not marked with the SPAMtag, they place it in this folder. Every month or so, I go through the folder, looking for common sources (so I can block IP banks) or common headers (so I can SPAMCAN messages with new filter entries). I have found Ron's recently released ipw tool useful in tracing IP blocks to a common source. This combination has proven to be quite powerful. Employees who got the worst of the SPAM report the amount of SPAM they now get has been cut down by 98%. But how does this relate to e-mail lists? Already, my lists are protected by the same IP-block rejection and destination/source filtering that protects employee e-mail. And I've modified majordomo to reject any inbound message marked with my special SPAMtag. I have one fully moderated list - I've only had to delete one SPAM message from it in over three years. I have a handful of unmoderated lists and digests. Majordomo screens out about 5 SPAM mails per week. I think two have gotten through in the past three years. So, none of this may apply to the smaller list owner not running their own site. But a lot of us here also have other network administration duties that might include generic e-mail service. For those in this position, I highly recommend looking up the new SPAM filtering methods found in Sendmail 8.8.8. I also recommend the SPAMCAN patches to Sendmail. They've made handling SPAM at my site a lot more fun. :-P -todd- http://www.sendmail.org/antispam.html http://consult.ml.org/~timb/spamcan/ http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/blacklists.cgi <<-- used to be there, at least - site was down when I wrote this From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 05:41:56 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA04070; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 05:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA04052 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 05:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id IAA28594; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 08:39:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980612083925.A28541@gsp.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 08:39:25 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: ; ; <19980611054157.A12406@gsp.org> <19980611121622.A14985@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 05:28:01PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 05:28:01PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > I find it serves a major purpose -- the purpose being that we stop > thinking in terms of fitting information into a transport layer, and > start making information available the way the user wants it. Chuq, I agree heartily with this approach: for example, I've argued for years that mailing lists and Usenet news should both be replaced with a medium that combines the attributes of both (and hopefully, incorporates what we've learned from both) into something that facilitates communication in the same way both do -- but which I *hope* avoids at least some of the problems inherent to both. But as much as I agree with The Big Picture view of where we oughta be going, I have to say that I still differ with you on the hide-the-details-in-the-GUI approach. I think that approach is responsible for some of the mess we see now, e.g. HTML in Usenet articles, unsubscribe requests posted to Usenet newsgroups, broken mail headers, and all sorts of user confusion about netiquette. Not that using specific interfaces would magically solve all this: for better or worse, this ain't the small 'net of delivermail and A News. ;-) But I think that just at the moment, the sort-of "universal client" interfaces are doing more harm than good. *If* we can actually build a unified medium -- and we probably will some day -- then I think we'll be ready for a unified interface. (I hope this is coherent. I'm only on coffee #1.) ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 05:50:42 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA04104; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA04097 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 05:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id OAA27598; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:41:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id OAA28055; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:41:45 +0200 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:41:45 +0200 Message-Id: <199806121241.OAA28055@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <3596.897588965@monkeys.com> (rfg@monkeys.com) Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ron Guilmette wrote: > At the present time, and despite the already considerable incentives to do > so, there are no known spammers attempting to do IP spoofing. Then we should start working on closing this gaping security hole before it gets widely exploited. > I see no > reason why that would change if my rather simple idea were put into > practice. Hmm... your idea may be simple, but putting it in practice would not be simple, because each and every mailing list server would need to be upgraded. I wouldn't mind all this effort if the result were a secure system. But if the result is a system which can be circumvented with something as simple as one person writing IP-spoofing spam software and selling it to other spammers, we risk making this considerable investment for nothing. Mike Nolan replied to Ron: > Although I think there may be numerous details to be worked out, I think > Ron has the germ of a viable idea going. I agree. > Some form of public key identifier in a header is the only viable validation > scheme I've come up with when I've thought about it. YES - but this indentifier should be somewhere in a revised version of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), not in SMTP headers! (BTW, since the Internet Protocol must be changed anyway in the near future to enlarge IP numbers from four bytes to eight bytes or something, modifying TCP also is maybe not altogether off limits). > However, I'd like to see the whole concept taken much further, well beyond > just mailing list issues. Pardon me while I philosophise online here, > and if anyone thought Ron's proposal had a lot of details to be resolved > this one has even more! YES - essentially you're suggesting to apply Ron's idea to TCP instead of e-mail headers. I agree this is the way to go. > What I think is needed is some kind of central 'transfer of payments' > authority for the entire Internet, analagous to what the long distance > phone carriers have. (This is a very radical proposal, it probably > involves completely restructuring both the packet forwarding and the cost > system for the Internet, but that's something that has already happened > once in the past few years, more or less by default, this time it would > have to happen by conscious design.) So this will require very significant changes to the internet protocol also. Ugly changes even... but I think it could be made to work. > Under my idea, EVERY Internet packet would carry a cost with it, to be > assumed by either the sending or receiving party and debited against the > account. Intermediate carriers could conceivably get a share of this fee, > and that fee might ultimately replace many other connect charges. (And if > that means that carriers begin to fight over the right to carry traffic, as > opposed to the current system where they dont' seem to care much whether > they have MY business or not, much like the long distance phone carriers > fight for my account, then I see this as a potentially VERY Good Thing.) YES - this will add incentive to provide good network infrastructure. In addition, fast long-distance connections would be more expensive than slow ones, HTTP traffic would be routed over the fast, more expensive routes (who likes the World Wide Wait?) while less urgent things like SMTP traffic would be routed via cheap connections. -- NB. From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 06:11:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA04975; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 06:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA04968 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 06:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id PAA28018; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:07:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id PAA28176; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:07:17 +0200 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:07:17 +0200 Message-Id: <199806121307.PAA28176@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: chuqui@plaidworks.com CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:09:52 -0700) Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > But both mailing lists and USENET are just isolated aspects of this new > > and still evolving communications medium, and ones which may eventually > > be supplanted by something else. > > And that's what I'm working on. "something else". > > Someone's gotta, if we want it to happen some day. Are you willing to share more about this, now that you've made us curious? -- NB. From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 07:29:22 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA06756; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA06749 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA43318 ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:28:52 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806121307.PAA28176@pythagoras> References: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:09:52 -0700) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:12:25 -0700 To: Norbert Bollow , chuqui@plaidworks.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 6:07 AM -0700 6/12/98, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > And that's what I'm working on. "something else". > > > > Someone's gotta, if we want it to happen some day. > > Are you willing to share more about this, now that you've made us curious? As I can. I've been in discussion iwth a couple of companies about technology issues that I'm not at liberty to talk about yet, and there are also aspects of the project at Apple I can't talk about. Besides, we're just starting to move from talking and thinking to design and implementation, so it's a bit premature on a number of fronts. I always try to be as open as I can about things, since I feel that putting information back into a system that I happily borrow from is a Good Thing. But this isn't just me hacking in a corner on the weekends any more, so I have to be a bit careful. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 09:56:27 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA08830; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kirkwood.hoosier.net (kirkwood.hoosier.net [206.106.64.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA08821 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (lev@localhost) by kirkwood.hoosier.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA09625; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:57:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:57:56 -0500 (EST) From: P Kayak X-Sender: lev@kirkwood.hoosier.net To: nolan@tssi.com cc: Chuq Von Rospach , List Managers Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Convince me, about the NGs. Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Mike Nolan wrote: > No, USENET is dead. Size and volume are not measures > of USABILTY. Yes, there's lots of stuff in it. How much of it is > usable? One-third of the discussion forums I'm on are NGs. One-third of the best. But! What is your idea? If you see newsgroups having gotten to their end, you might be thinking about some kind of communication which I better try to catch up with. Http+list? - Paul To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man. : - Oliver Wendell Holmes : :_Nine Stories_, JDSalinger=**** ..................................: From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 10:26:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA09388; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA09381 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA40714 ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:28:18 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:24:56 -0700 To: P Kayak , nolan@tssi.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , List Managers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >But! What is your idea? If you see newsgroups having gotten to their >end, you might be thinking about some kind of communication which I better >try to catch up with. > >Http+list? At a general level. Basically, the stuff I've been doing since abou 1994, when I gave up on USENET and went elsewhere. Right now, Mailing lists with a number of web enhancements for administration and archiving. Soon, a system that's much better integrated between the two sides than I currently have, and which'll be accessible via NNTP as well. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + (Hockey fan? ) From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 11:11:29 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA10168; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id LAA10161 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.43] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #2) id 0ykYEX-0006Xq-00; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:07:25 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980612190622.00a24ae0@stingray.ivision.co.uk> X-Sender: manarpop@stingray.ivision.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:06:22 +0100 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Manar Hussain Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: List Managers In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:24 12/06/98 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >>But! What is your idea? If you see newsgroups having gotten to their >>end, you might be thinking about some kind of communication which I better >>try to catch up with. >> >>Http+list? > >At a general level. Basically, the stuff I've been doing since abou 1994, >when I gave up on USENET and went elsewhere. Right now, Mailing lists with >a number of web enhancements for administration and archiving. Soon, a >system that's much better integrated between the two sides than I currently >have, and which'll be accessible via NNTP as well. Chuq - maybe I should contact you direct. Somewhat over a year ago we did a pretty decent "web board" system that received and sent email - i.e. was designed to site on top of a mailing list - majordomo in practice (all in perl5). Things went pretty quiet for a while at our end for various reasons but we should be coming back to at least work in mail2news/news2mail into it. We'd spent a lot of time on the code and some bits of it are pretty useful but we've had problems being able to justify much more work on it recently even thought it's close to being a lot better (liek everything :). We are certainly open to making it pretty much freely available if there is an opporunity to pool that input into something that might get further ... You can see a somewhat old version of what we did at www.democracy.org.uk Manar From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 15:26:56 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA14541; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA14532 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id SAA05088; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980612182417.C4543@gsp.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:24:17 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Ron's idea References: <19980611202224.A21413@gsp.org> <199806121414.QAA28334@pythagoras> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806121414.QAA28334@pythagoras>; from Norbert Bollow on Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 04:14:48PM +0200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 04:14:48PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > It's been discussed before > > Do you remember where this has been discussed, and who proposed this > kinds of ideas? Vaguely. (Hey, I've had a long day. My brain is tired.) Most likely candidates: check the archives of the com-priv and inet-access mailing lists, which are the two places that I recall seeing this debated at length. I don't recall any mailing list dedicated solely to this topic, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't one. BTW, metered networks are out there - but most organizations are abandoning them in droves in favor of the 'net. In other words, they're switching from private networks where they pay by the drink to Virtual Private Networks (VPN) where they pay flat-rate. (I'm horribly generalizing here, I know, but the point I'm trying to get across is that the world seems to be moving *away* from metered service, not toward it.) BTW #2: one of the problems with doing this is that the expense of doing so may exceed the revenues thus derived. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:26:44 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16699; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16691 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (antiochus-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.188]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA24230 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voyager (d88.dial-1.cmb.ma.ultra.net [209.6.64.88]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with SMTP id BAA16259 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:05:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980612050641.00c189b4@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:06:41 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: [spamtools] Spam Filtering and Messy Details. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>The particular scheme you suggest sounded like it might be possible >>for a spammer to subscribe to a real list and re-use its >>authetication header on spam, since you are only signing the >>Date: header, not the message body... > >No, because the spammer would not actually ever be in possesion of the >_true_ list owner's private key. Thus, he could not properly encript >the date/timestamp so that it would properly decrypt with the corresponding >public key. The spammer just re-uses the date/timestamp as well as the encrypted key. Days-old mail from mailing lists is (unfortunately) not rare. Stan From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:36:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16437; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16427 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA07035 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA29610 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >No, it means you shouldn't estimate your driving time based on best road > >conditions, but rather, on near-WORST road conditions. > > Disagree (still). To beat the analogy into a pulp, you should estimate your > driving time based on realistic road conditions -- no sense planning for > near-worst road conditions, really. I can't see carrying chains to Reno in > July, just in case a blizzard rolls in and closes Truckie pass. OK, try "pessimistic rational assumptions." "30-50% of all subscription attempts will need manual assistance" is pessimistic but rational. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:41:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16463; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16453 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA10486 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01149 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:18:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Rich Kulawiec cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: <19980611145106.A18905@gsp.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > What I have always told people (and perhaps I have been wrong to do so) > is that > > listname-request@foo.bar > > will get you to someONE or someTHING that will honor administrative requests > and that > > listname-owner@foo.bar > > will get you to someONE. Seems fair... but the someTHING should help you get to someONE very easily. > I also support > > owner-listname@foo.bar > > (which I don't happen to like because it doesn't seem to me to be consistent > with the -request convention, but which some people seem to go looking for). This is mainly a sendmail-ism, on the assumption that the recipient of sendmail "list" "owner" notification should be the same as the list owner. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:47:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16450; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16440 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA08230 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00455 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:48:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Brock Rozen cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Brock Rozen wrote: > Just for your knowledge -- this is how Mj1 runs as well. You have the > option of turning the -request addresses on or off...but when on, they are > for machine-bound messages. The default behavior is NOT to run the subscribe robot, but to run a recorded message that tells three things clearly: how to subscribe, how to unsubscribe, and how to reach a human. We also cc mail to a list's -request address to the list-owner for inspection. Listening for commands at the -request adress is NOT the default behavior. The original configuration, before you could even do this, is to run request-answer there; I still do this, because I find users deal with it better. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:48:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16424; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16414 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA03979 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA27148 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:36:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > List-managers should consider > >if they can handle the load under the worst case -- where every subscriber > >is a clueless newbie who sends "Dear Mister Domo, what am I doing wrong, > > I disagree. That's like saying nobody should drive unless they know how to > fix anything that might happen to the car along the trip. A driver should > be skilled at driving the car and able to handle emergency situations (like > changing a flat tire), but if the engine falls out, it falls out. That > doesn't mean you shouldn't drive if you can't do a ring-job on it on the > expressway.... No, it means you shouldn't estimate your driving time based on best road conditions, but rather, on near-WORST road conditions. Nobody said you have to be able to WRITE your management software -- just that you have to have time to handle the requests even if most of them require manual intervention. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:53:55 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16267; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:13:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16251 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA27388 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from djr@localhost by mail.n.ml.org (Sendmail 8.9.0) via SMTP (HAA07080) on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:06:00 -0400 (199806111106) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:05:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Reed To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: spamtools@abuse.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-Reply-To: <21758.897555645@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: ) In message , ) Ken Hooper wrote: ) >Dunno whether this is true but I'm sure you'll never get any but a minority ) >of list owners to implement it without coercing them somehow... ) I prefer to call it gentle persuasion. ) ) Either sign up or else your mailing list traffic will be rejected by my ) site as being probable spam. I haven't really been following this thread, so I may be putting my foot in my mouth, but... ) Of course, if we are talking about the monkeys.com domain (total of 1 user) ) nobody gives a damn. However if AOL decided to do this, or Hotmail, then ) I think that you would find a lot of list admins getting with the program. I think that's disgusting. That's almost sorta kinda like "if you want to sell one computer with Windows, you have to sell them all with Windows," except in this case it's not so "bad." ) >... and that would be wrong. ) OK. I'll bite. Why? ) ) Are mailing list administrators like minor dieties or something? Taken in context, absolutely! I run over 60 mailing lists on narnia, and I'll be damned before I let some half-twit (either at monkeys.com or aol.com) tell me I have to have my mailing lists added to some list before their users will be able to participate. The correct answer to "I can't subscribe to your mailing list because my ISP has some blocking thing setup" is "get a decent ISP." ) Is there ) something wrong with asking them to do their part to help end sbulk E-mail ) spam on the Internet?? I find that emailing the full message and full headers to abuse@THEIRDIRECTUPSTREAMPROVIDER usually works absolutely wonderfully. Even AGIS responds to my messages [sometimes]. -- Daniel Reed It is better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies. -- Arthur Calwell From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:56:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA18071; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from triceratops.com (triceratops.com [206.83.162.235]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id RAA18048 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:53:51 -0700 (PDT) From: johnjohn@triceratops.com Received: (qmail 10456 invoked by uid 100); 13 Jun 1998 00:54:56 -0000 Message-ID: <19980613005456.10455.qmail@triceratops.com> Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:54:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Roger B.A. Klorese" at Jun 11, 98 11:13:46 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > OK, try "pessimistic rational assumptions." "30-50% of all subscription > attempts will need manual assistance" is pessimistic but rational. In my pessimistic but rational viewpoint, you need new MLM software. John -- John White Triceratops Admin johnjohn@triceratops.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:58:01 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16398; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16388 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA02596 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA26176 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > At 10:52 PM -0700 6/10/98, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > I believe that is the intention of the section. (Which frankly I don't > > agree with, which is why I want the thing clarified. But until it is, I > > will write software that automatically sits at -request.) > > Which is what I do. but I make sure that -request points a person at an > address where a real human can be contacted if necessary. That's why I run "request-answer" there, with mail forwarded to the list owner. 90% of the mail to the -request address is an invalid command anyway, because most people who have ever heard of -request expect it to send plain text to an owner, not formatted parseable commands. Most folks who are expecting an automated processor send their mail to majordomo or listserv anyway. And most people who are too stupid to put it together send it to the posting address. > I sometimes get the feeling that the people who write these "thou > shalt" docs run one or two lists with 100 users who never change e-mail > addresses... Well, we're at 100+ lists (plus digests plus hidden owner lists), and about 30,000 aggregated subscriptions -- not huge, but not tiny. And the number of staggeringly frustrated notes we get a week indicate that the process has to become RADICALLY simpler... which means both better engineering and a shorter path to a human. List-managers should consider if they can handle the load under the worst case -- where every subscriber is a clueless newbie who sends "Dear Mister Domo, what am I doing wrong, and why aren't you letting me on the list -- can you give me your telephone number so we can do this the easy way, and are you listed under 'Domo' in the San Francisco directory?" messages -- and if not, find help. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 17:59:04 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16409; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16401 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA02967 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.B1A6FFB4@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:59:00 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6586; Thu, 11 Jun 98 18:01:33 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 2326; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:01:33 +0200 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:08:33 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Jason L Tibbitts III cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of 10 Jun 1998 23:27:54 -0500 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Incidentally, neither I nor any of my colleagues at L-Soft were aware of this RFC. Even though our product is specifically mentioned, it looks like none of the members of the working group who drafted it had the professional courtesy to inform us or send us a copy. I am confident that the party line will be that we only have ourselves to blame as the working group was clearly announced on some IETF mailing list we don't have the time to read because every other message is "unsubscribe" or then a keynote address about top-level domains, and we could not reasonably expect the working group to want to involve key players in the industry that they were about to legislate on, but the real problem is that your average reader will of course assume that we were involved in drafting the document and that we endorse it. In fact we had no knowledge of its existence, and we don't endorse it at all because the wording is confusing and the interpretation I am reading (that the -REQUEST address is the correct and official place to send list manager commands) is totally unacceptable to us, as it leaves no contact point for the HUMAN list owner, a very serious shortcoming for today's non-technical users. Quite frankly I am amazed that the working group thought they could just come up with this decision and that we would do whatever they said, on account of the IETF stamp and in spite of the (probable) lack of mailing list expertise in the working group. I know this was the prevalent attitude 10 years ago, but you'd think things would have changed now that even the IETF admits that the industry controls the standards in practice and that IETF standards are worthless unless the industry agrees to implement them. Anyway, L-Soft will continue to use -REQUEST for the human contact + autoresponder, and -SERVER for the command address. Eric From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 18:03:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16665; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16626 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA17194 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from djr@localhost by mail.n.ml.org (Sendmail 8.9.0) via SMTP (TAA11474) on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:19:59 -0400 (199806112319) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:19:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Reed To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-Reply-To: <6028.897593590@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: ) In message <000601bd9550$bd5db800$b6611ac3@neutron.syzygy.co.uk>, ) "Kief Morris" wrote: ) >This scheme would put ) >the mechanism in place to make this easy to do, and you know politicians ) >will latch onto it. ) No. I don't know any such thing. Most of them can't find their keyboards ) with both hands and most haven't the vaguest idea what we online folks do ) here on the net, so I have no reason to believe that they would suddenly ) take some morbid interest in mailing lists and how they operate on the net. I'm sure they wouldn't as well. And as such, them seeing this new method of censoring communication on the Internet in order to curtail the horrible, anti-social action of spamming would be all the more easier. These same people who mostly can't find their keyboards with both hands also passed the Decency in Communication Act (which was, luckily, erased by the Supreme Court because of its blatent unconstitutionality). ) >But I don't like the idea of taking power away from individuals, ) The idea I put forward wouldn't really have the effect of taking away anyone's ) liberty. You would still be allowed to scream your bloody lungs out in the ) wilderness, but nobody might be listening when you do... in particular if ) you refuse to follow any of the standard protocols of polite discourse and ) discussions that are acceptable by the rest of society. What you're proposing would put up a barricade around my little stretch of the "wilderness" in order to protect the nearby town from the possibility that I might be a person who's shouting out about my latest set of HP printers. In order to rant about the evils of burocratic process, I'd have to become involved with it to register my section of the wilderness as being "safe" from unsolicited advertizements. ) This is no different from saying that yes, you *can* try to run a mailing ) list which always sends mail out on port 17025 (rather than port 25) but it ) then bomes likely that you won't garner much of an audience. Still, you ) are free to make the choice to defy convention if you like. Be my guest. The difference there, of course, is that port 25 isn't just a convention, it's a "standard." -- Daniel Reed A computer without Windows is like a fish without a bicycle From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 18:07:46 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16476; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16466 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nuinfo.nwu.edu (nuinfo.nwu.edu [129.105.212.72]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA10497 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lunde@localhost) by nuinfo.nwu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11049; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:18:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199806111918.OAA11049@nuinfo.nwu.edu> Subject: Re: [spamtools] Spam Filtering and Messy Details. To: spamtools@abuse.net Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:18:10 CDT Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <19693.897429518@monkeys.com>; from "Ronald F. Guilmette" at Jun 09, 98 2:58 pm From: albert-lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) Reply-To: albert-lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Imagine the following scenario for the evolution of the Internet and for > the evolution of legitimate opt-in mailing lists. > > Some party (or parties) declares itself to be a sort-of central clearing > house for information on legitimate mailing lists. Let's just call it > `legit-lists.org'. That party operates some sort of a server which allows > other sites to obtain (either via push or via pull, whatever seems to make > the most sense) a full and current list of legitimate opt-in mailing lists > _and_ their associated *public encryption keys*. (Now stay with me here. > It isn't as bad as you think, and I'm *not* going to propose any sort of > exhorbitantly complex Rube Goldberg mechanism... just something simple > based upon public-key encryption technology.) I think the immediate impact of attempting to implement this proposal, would be that most list owners would start getting bounces/errors from sites trying to use the whitelist, and drop all people from those sites from their lists. There are _a lot_ of mailing lists running a lot of different software. A fair number are still things like sendmail aliases updated by hand, or other quick-and-dirty solutions for which it would be hard to add public key signing. It might be feasible to get public key signing of list messages folded into new releases of some list software, expecially if it conferred some other benfit besides getting past an unimplemented whitelist. But there would be a sigificant time lag getting it adopted. The particular scheme you suggest sounded like it might be possible for a spammer to subscribe to a real list and re-use its authetication header on spam, since you are only signing the Date: header, not the message body. Spammers don't care if the Date: header is accurate. The typical delays in mail delivery would force one to accept Date: headers up to several days old; you could not use as tight a time window as say, Kerberos. I think you'd have to sign some a digest of some normalized form of a selected subset of headers and the message body. Doing it so that various mail transfer agents will not break the checksums is non-trivial (there are still things like ASCII/EBCDIC translation and trimming /wrapping of lines to worry about). There's also the question ITAR and cyptography; though I think this can be bypassed if you can use a scheme that can only be used for signing and not for encryption. From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 18:08:49 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16654; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16610 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA16790 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from djr@localhost by mail.n.ml.org (Sendmail 8.9.0) via SMTP (TAA11392) on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:00:19 -0400 (199806112300) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:00:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Reed To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-Reply-To: <3573.897588865@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm not on spamtools@abuse.net, and the last time I [accidentally, I just hit reply-to-all] crossposted there I received a note (probably from the list owner) telling me I had to subscribe there to post there. On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: ) In message , ) Daniel Reed wrote: ) >On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: ) >) Of course, if we are talking about the monkeys.com domain (total of 1 user) ) >) nobody gives a damn. However if AOL decided to do this, or Hotmail, then ) >) I think that you would find a lot of list admins getting with the program. ) >I think that's disgusting. That's almost sorta kinda like "if you want to ) >sell one computer with Windows, you have to sell them all with Windows," ) >except in this case it's not so "bad." ) There's a big difference. It's still bullying. The *only* time such actions are substantiated are when they are backed by an RFC, or some other form of religious text. If that is your ultimate goal, then forget about the bullying crap. ) In one case, the goal is just to make Bill Gates richer than he already is. ) ) In the case of what I proposed however, the goal is to rid the Internet of ) bulk E-mail spam while leaving all of the *legitimate* mailing lists still ) standing. No matter how valiant, how noble, how just, or how pure your goal of cleaning up the environment is, blowing up factories that are major contributors to pollution is *not* an okay solution. I think the same thinking applies. As I said when I made my initial post early this morning, 7 minutes after I had awakened after having 4 hours of sleep, I have not been following this thread. All I saw was "force" and I knew I had to rant. ) >) Are mailing list administrators like minor dieties or something? ) >Taken in context, absolutely! ) >I run over 60 mailing lists on narnia, and I'll be damned before I let ) >some half-twit (either at monkeys.com or aol.com) tell me I have to have ) >my mailing lists added to some list before their users will be able to ) >participate. ) Hummm... Fiesty, aren't we? When someone sets aside the time and resources to implement a mailing list for the good of others, they can rightfully expect to be let alone to do their thing. Forcing them to register with your data base, or data bases scattered across the net, or whatever, in order to use their mailing list would be similar to forcing every shell server to require them to register every authorized IRC bot run on their server in order to curtail abuse generated from unauthorized bots. I doubt very many shell server admins would want to bother, and would instead just disallow bots (which is sadly a growing trend already). Hello, my name is Emanuel Goldstein of the Ellingson Mineral Corporation's technology department. I'm writing you today to inform you that a user at our site, Mr. Duke Ellingson, has attempted to subscribe to your unregistered oil-transporters@some.small.site mailing list. Because we cannot be bothered to take the time out of our incredibly busy schedules to properly handle incoming unsolicited commercial email, we have opted to filter out *all* bulk email and only let in bulk mail coming from sites listed in the Ellingson Mineral Officially Verified and Registered Mailing List data base. Please go to http://gibson.ellingson-mineral.com/EMOVRML/signup.cgi?newlist to register your mailing list with our data base so that your mailing list traffic will be accepted by our mail routers. ) >The correct answer to "I can't subscribe to your mailing list because my ) >ISP has some blocking thing setup" is "get a decent ISP." ) That's swell, except for it doesn't do anything to cutrail the bulk E-mail ) spam problem. And your solution does? What happened to the realtime black-list? What happened to anti-relaying .rc scripts for sendmail? What happened to any and every other anti-UCE project that's ever been undertaken? Are they all failures, and hence your new socialist system will be the Final Solution to the UCE problem? ) Are you pro-spam? I've never really tried spam before, but I've heard nothing but horror stories about its taste. Maybe I should try some one time and see what all the fuss is about... ) OK, OK. It's a retorical question, but you get my drift. Bulk E-mail ) spam has changed the nature of the net forever and there is no going back. That sounds pretty alarmist to me... ) *Somebody* is going to have to make some small sacrafices in order for ) us to get rid of this crap, and it may (unfortunately) end up being the ) owners and operators of legitimate mailing lists. And why not the spammers themselves? Contacting their upstream providers, or their upstream providers' upstream providers, or their upstream providers' upstream providers' upstream providers, or their Aunt Dorris' cat Nellie, is in my exceedingly humble opinion the best way to deal with the UCE problem. Too many people just say "grrr, more mass mail... click" and delete it. Then there are those who look at the message headers, do a little bit of investigative work, and contact the appropriate persons. Then there are people who collect all of their UCE into a big list, compile it, make copies in triplicate, then use it to feed coordinates into their thermonuclear missiles. [snip: mailing lists are bulk, UCE is bulk, UCE isn't unambigious so mailing lists might as well be unambigious] ) as being legitimate... preferebly in an unforgable way (such as what I ) described). ) ) You may not like it but that may be the future. Yes, and the US government might see fit to regulate email as well in order to put a handle on this growing, horrible, drastic problem. You may not like it but that may be the future. Aggggg, that would be *horrible*, so what are we going to do about it? What am I doing with you right now? ) You may not like it, but this may perhaps be the _only_ complete solution ) to the E-mail spam problem. Highly doubtful. It might be the *best* of the complete solutions to the UCE problem, or it might be the most easily implemented (which I very highly doubt) of the complete solutions to the UCE problems, but there are always, of course, those nuclear bombs in my backyard... they just need some coordinates... ) I mean geeezzzz... It isn't as if I was telling you that you were going to ) have to pay money in order to continue to run your legitimate lists! That ) _ain't_ what I was proposing. That's at least a plus. ) >I find that emailing the full message and full headers to ) >abuse@THEIRDIRECTUPSTREAMPROVIDER usually works absolutely wonderfully. ) >Even AGIS responds to my messages [sometimes]. ) That's swell, except that there are many others who don't respond in any ) meaningful way. Compuserve is one. I've never had the pleasure of conversing with anyone at CompuServe with regards to UCE. ) UUnet is another. You must have pissed them off or something. I have yet to receive an unsatisfactory reply from UUnet. ) AT&T is another. The one time I had a problem with an AT&T spammer the problem was dealt with satisfactorily. ) Shall I go on? (I have a rather long list.) Please, only if you can actually substantiate their being named on your rather long list. -- Daniel Reed Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance. -- Confucius From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 18:11:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA17199; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16679 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (antiochus-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.188]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA23851 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voyager (d120.dial-1.cmb.ma.ultra.net [209.6.64.120]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with SMTP id AAA09570; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980612045151.01421fe8@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:51:51 -0400 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 02:58 PM 6/9/98 -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >[This message is being cross-posted to both the spamtools mailing list > and also to the List-Managers mailing lists, since it really has a > lot of relevance to both audiences.] [and I have removed spamtools since I'm not subscribed.] [long proposal snipped] 1. If the entire message isn't used to generate the key, rather than just the date and time, spammers can just subscribe to existing mailing lists and "steal" headers, fill in their own body, and send to their CD-ROM list of names. This will be worse than now, since it will "look like" mail from a legit list and/or list-posters but will in fact be spam. (Sure, the times will be a little old -- but the spammers won't care.) 2. You'll have to get the major MLM software players to go along with this to even have a chance. My list is LISTSERV(tm), and I can't even add a simple, unvarying "Precedence: List" header though I want to, never mind generate a PGP (or whatever) type of header. And it takes YEARS for upgrades to fully propagate to all the LISTSERV sites (though I think there is one being planned for required Y2K fixes by 01 Jan 2000). Cheers, Stan From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 18:16:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA17205; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA16657 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polya.mts.jhu.edu (polya.mts.jhu.edu [128.220.17.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA20114 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (bogstad@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by polya.mts.jhu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA23320; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806120216.WAA23320@polya.mts.jhu.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: polya.mts.jhu.edu: bogstad@localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:28:01 PDT." From: Bill Bogstad Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:16:28 -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq wrote: >>... >I find it serves a major purpose -- the purpose being that we stop >thinking in terms of fitting information into a transport layer, and >start making information available the way the user wants it. If that's >email, great. If it's web, great. If that's NNTP, great. The point is, >stop thinking of e-mail as an entity unto itself, and start realizing >it's just one way to communicate. Some ways it's the better way, some >ways it's not. but more important, set things up so that the user gets >the info the way the user wants the info. So let's examine some of the dimensions in which a human communications technology might vary: typical # of content creators vs. # of content viewers control of distribution sensory modality & encoding sound - voice/music visual - graphics & pictures (static or moving)/text spontaneous access vs. subscription service real-time vs. delayed permanent vs. ephemeral index/search friendliness Some technologies to consider: Telephone calls, Telegrams, CDs/records/tapes, Video Cassettes, Books, Magazines, Postal letters, Email, Email lists, Cable Television, Broadcast Television, HTTP/HTML, NNTP(Usenet), 'talk' sessions, 'chat' rooms Although you could argue the point about where these technologies sit in each of those dimensions, they have all acquired certain expected characteristics. Telephone calls are assummed to be ephemeral. There are even legal jurisdictions where making them permanent (recording them) is illegal without the permission of all (both) parties. Those characteristics also affect the tone of the way people use them. Magazines and Books have very similar characteristics, but I would argue that Magazines are significantly more ephemeral then Books. I think the result is that Books are (on average) 'weightier' then Magazines. Email lists and USENET groups also share similar characteristics. The differences are that Email lists are subscription services while USENET invites spontanous access and Email lists are controllable while USENET groups are open. In some ways, I WANT the Email lists that I access to be 'hard' to get to. This (on average) keeps the traffic levels down and restricts them to people who are seriously interested in the topic. USENET, on the other hand, makes it easy for anyone to quickly enter the conversation and then leave it. I like USENET as well, it lets me (ask questions/see the opinions) of large groups of people on a topic which I might not want to do all the time. The (typically) better data handling capabilities of USENET software also makes it easier to find what I'm looking for in the fast flow of traffic. Putting the contents of an Email list on a web site and providing a form where I could send messages to the list would turn Email into a pale imitation of USENET. Unless the web site maintainer adds all of the functionality of USENET software, I'll see all of problems of USENET without the advantages. Before changing one of the dimensions of a system consider what the subtle effects might be on how people will use it. I don't think it's obvious and would suggest doing this by comparing paired technologies that only vary in that dimension. Bill Bogstad bogstad@pobox.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 12 20:11:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA25652; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id UAA25645 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12039 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 1998 03:14:06 -0000 To: List Managers Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <3.0.5.32.19980612190622.00a24ae0@stingray.ivision.co.uk> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: Manar Hussain's message of "Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:06:22 +0100" Date: 12 Jun 1998 20:14:06 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 24 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Manar Hussain writes: > Things went pretty quiet for a while at our end for various reasons but > we should be coming back to at least work in mail2news/news2mail into > it. News::Gateway, currently in alpha release, is a Perl package written by me and freely available; it's designed to provide a modular way of integrating just about anything one might want to do with mail to news and news to mail gatewaying in one place so as to reduce duplication of effort. I started working on it when I wanted to do something like that myself and found tons of various different gateways, none of which worked very well. . Suggestions, comments, complaints, success stories, contributions, and the like all very much welcome. (Please take responses off-line, as this is only remotely related to the purpose of this list and extended discussion of any particular tool is definitely off-topic for this list.) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Sun Jun 14 19:41:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA29526; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polaris.umuc.edu (polaris.umuc.edu [131.171.11.22]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA29507 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by polaris.umuc.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA25972; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:33:41 -0400 (EDT) From: William Ross To: Lazlo Nibble cc: List Mgrs Subject: Re: HTML email In-Reply-To: <19980609094243.A8037@swcp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Can someone please send me instructions on how to get off of this e-mail list. Thank you, William Ross From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 00:11:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA04944; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA04928 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA14815 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id SAA05455; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980612183344.A5378@gsp.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:33:44 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: John Meyer Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: NEW: Emaillist-managers - e-mail list managers References: <199806122207.SAA04619@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806122207.SAA04619@gsp.org>; from John Meyer on Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 04:40:58PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 04:40:58PM -0500, John Meyer wrote: > Emaillist-managers via http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Emaillist-managers > > Emaillist-managers is a list pertaining to and dealing with the issues > faced by e-mail managers, including drumming up support for an e-mail > list, managing an e-mail list and dealing with various personalities. Why are you setting up *another* list for mailing list managers, when the list-manager's mailing list has been in operation for years, is well-known, has frequent participation by many mailing list managers all over the world, and has served the exact same functions admirably? ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 00:15:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA04945; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA04729 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA27569 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA02885; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA28360; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:14:47 -0700 To: Stan Ryckman cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Filtering and Messy Details. In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:51:51 -0400. <2.2.32.19980612045151.01421fe8@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:14:46 -0700 Message-ID: <28358.897639286@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <2.2.32.19980612045151.01421fe8@pop.ma.ultranet.com>, you wrote: >1. If the entire message isn't used to generate the key, rather than just >the date and time, spammers can just subscribe to existing mailing lists >and "steal" headers, fill in their own body, and send to their CD-ROM >list of names. Hummm. I guess you have a point there. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 00:18:03 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA04791; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA04781 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA06547 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id QAA29279; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 16:14:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id QAA28334; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 16:14:48 +0200 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 16:14:48 +0200 Message-Id: <199806121414.QAA28334@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: rsk@gsp.org CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <19980611202224.A21413@gsp.org> (message from Rich Kulawiec on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:22:24 -0400) Subject: Re: Ron's idea Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 10:01:51AM -0500, Mike Nolan wrote: > > What I think is needed is some kind of central 'transfer of payments' > > authority for the entire Internet, analagous to what the long distance > > phone carriers have. > > This would kill the 'net. If you think the arguments we have over > things like control of DNS are bad, the outright wars that would > erupt over this would make those look like minor skirmishes. Good point. Let's leave the current cooperative model of the internet unchanged and make plans for a new network. A network which would be interconnected with the internet and it's workings would be mostly indistinguishable from how the internet works for the ordinary end user, but where TCP/IP is replaced by a pair of protocals which implement Mike Nolan's idea. I am sure this new network will very quickly start to offer better services than the 'old' internet, and hence become a great commercial success for the many network infrastructure companies that will participate in it. > And that`s > without even getting into the technical details of implementing this, > a nightmare that I don't even want to think about. You don't have to.... some people will be interested in designing and implementing this; that is going to be a real challenge, yes, but you see, some people like challenges. > It's been discussed before Do you remember where this has been discussed, and who proposed this kinds of ideas? This topic is getting off-topic for this list; I'd like to see a separate list started for this topic (and if I someone would be so kind to suggest a suitable name for this new list, I'll be happy to host it:) -- NB. From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 00:22:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA04970; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA04948 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA16720 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA41398 ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:29:53 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980612083925.A28541@gsp.org> References: ; from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 05:28:01PM -0700 ; ; <19980611054157.A12406@gsp.org> <19980611121622.A14985@gsp.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:23:38 -0700 To: Rich Kulawiec , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:39 AM -0700 6/12/98, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > But as much as I agree with The Big Picture view of where we oughta > be going, I have to say that I still differ with you on the > hide-the-details-in-the-GUI approach. I think that approach is > responsible for some of the mess we see now, e.g. HTML in Usenet > articles, unsubscribe requests posted to Usenet newsgroups, broken > mail headers, and all sorts of user confusion about netiquette. Probably not as much as you think. If you check my systems, I take great pains to avoid some of those pitfalls. Just because I'm trying to integrate various systems doesn't mean they become homogenous. I *hate* styled text and HTML in mail lists, for instance. You won't see that stuff any time soon, but that doesn't mean you can't build systems that take advantage of those things for technologies where they belong..... Just because I'm pulling things together doesn't mean they all get wedged into the same paradigm. Just that they get integrated..... > But I think that just at the moment, the sort-of "universal client" > interfaces are doing more harm than good. I'm not looking for an integrated client. I'm looking for an integrated system that delivers content to a users preferred client. Very different things. One piece of content, multiple access points, by user's preference. Delivered as appropriate. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 00:23:50 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA05029; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA05012 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA03541 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 03:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id HAA08661; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 07:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980613070218.A8638@gsp.org> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 07:02:18 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com>; from Eric Thomas on Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 04:08:33PM +0200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 04:08:33PM +0200, Eric Thomas wrote: > I am confident that > the party line will be that we only have ourselves to blame as the > working group was clearly announced on some IETF mailing list we don't > have the time to read because every other message is "unsubscribe" or > then a keynote address about top-level domains, I find the time to read the mailing lists relevant to my work on the Internet and I'm a one-person company. If you cannot find the time to do so, then I suggest you abandon efforts to craft software for the Internet community. Yes, it's a pain in the ass. Yes, it's a time-sink. Yes, such mailing lists are often full of off-topic arguments. Tough. Deal with it. > that your average reader will of course assume that we were involved in > drafting the document and that we endorse it. In fact we had no knowledge > of its existence, and we don't endorse it at all because the wording is Whether you endorse it or not doesn't matter. You're expected to abide by it. There are a heck of a lot of RFCs that *I* don't endorse either, but I am expected to write software which complies with them. I have, as you do, my opportunities to argue for updates or changes. If I don't exercise them, I have only myself to blame -- and the same goes for you. > Anyway, L-Soft will continue to use -REQUEST for the > human contact + autoresponder, and -SERVER for the command address. Then L-Soft's software will be considered in violation of Internet standards, and I will recommend to every list manager, end user, network adminstrator and everyone else that I come into contact with that they avoid it or remove it until such time as it complies with this RFC. I find your attitude incredibly arrogant. How dare you willfully distribute a product which you *know* violates one of the most relevant RFCs? I'm sorry you weren't paying attention. I'm sorry you didn't get your way. But this kind of deliberately disruptive response is a huge disservice to the Internet community and makes you look like children stamping your little feet in petulant anger. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 00:26:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA05054; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA05044 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA06934 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 09:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806131620.JAA06934@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.7BDBB40A@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 17:23:45 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2066; Sat, 13 Jun 98 18:26:09 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 3811; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 18:26:08 +0200 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 17:11:17 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, Rich Kulawiec In-Reply-To: Message of Sat, 13 Jun 1998 07:02:18 -0400 from Rich Kulawiec Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 07:02:18 -0400 Rich Kulawiec said: >I find the time to read the mailing lists relevant to my work on the >Internet I read the mailing lists relevant to my work. This includes the list-managers list, but not the IETF mailing list, which only has remote relevance (and huge volume). This RFC should have been announced on list-managers and other related lists. It does stand for "Request For Comments" right? >Whether you endorse it or not doesn't matter. You're expected to abide >by it. You still live in the 80s. Here is the 90's perspective: 1. A group of people who know little about mailing lists started an IETF working group about e-mail addresses. They did not invite or even notify the major industry players. 2. The group made a RFC requiring a change in behaviour for the mailing list industry, which again was not invited to comment. 3. This change is incompatible with current behaviour and 15+ years' accepted practice. Worse, it eliminates a method whereby a human list owner could be contacted for assistance. 4. Given #3, major industry players decide not to implement the change. Actually, it took over a year for the industry to realize that the RFC even existed, which gives you an idea of the level of market demand for the functionality! 5. The RFC becomes one of many "lame duck" RFCs, which are not worth the paper they are printed on because they are not widely implemented. Everybody loses - the users, the IETF, the industry. >I find your attitude incredibly arrogant. Excuse me, but where is the arrogance exactly? Just look at the facts! I have often seen the level of arrogance that the IETF has displayed with this RFC, but only with sovereign legislative bodies. For instance, the French government passed a law requiring employers to pay people for 39h of work, but only make them work 35h (and magically find the money somewhere, this is not the government's problem). The industry was not invited to participate, and was outraged. The French government, however, has the sovereign authority to pass whatever idiotic law it wants whenever it wants, and to send people to jail if they do not follow these laws, as long as the democratic process is respected (people only have themselves to blame if they elect a goverment that abuses this power). The IETF, however, has no such authority. Its goal is to foster interoperability through the definition of vendor-neutral standards. This means working with the relevant organizations and individuals towards the development of standards for which "rough consensus" can be reached. This does not mean passing a law without involving the relevant parties and then expecting them to abide just because it says IETF at the top. Call me arrogant if you must, but I do not think the people involved in the discussion that led to the formulation of this standard have the necessary experience with running mailing lists to be qualified to make this decision, on a purely technical basis and setting aside all political considerations. I am confident that if they had, their decision would have been different. I did not oppose the decision because I was not aware of it until a few days ago, and of course it has been over a year now and it is too late. >How dare you willfully distribute a product which you *know* violates >one of the most relevant RFCs? Simply because I know better, on purely technical grounds. We also have a higher degree of commitment to the users than the people in the working group do. If we make the product harder to use, we will lose money. As a rule, we do not think that mailing list software development should go in the direction of making it harder to use. Removing the human contact address would be preposterous, so we will not do it. >But this kind of deliberately disruptive response is a huge disservice >to the Internet community and makes you look like children stamping your >little feet in petulant anger. I am sorry, but it is the working group who made a disservice to the community, in two ways. First, by passing a RFC that requires the removal of a de facto standard method for getting help from a human, in an age where things need to get easier to use and fast! This cannot possibly be a service to the community. Second, by putting the major industry players in a situation where they have no options but to demonstrate the flaws of the IETF process. There will be public accusations such as yours, and public responses. There will probably have to be a press release in which we explain what happened, that we were not involved or even informed, why this proposal is obviously not in the users' interest, and that in over a year there was not a single request for any of our customers to implement this change, ie the market does not want this. The IETF will look incompetent, childish, arrogant and useless. In the real world, no standardization body would even consider the possibility of discussing a standard without involving the relevant parties, it would simply be counter-productive to the point of being preposterous. Our difference in point of view stems from a simple fundamental disagreement. You think the IETF is sovereign and has a mandate to set standards for anything related to the Internet, and the industry must follow blindly whether it makes sense or not. I think the industry defines the standards (at least for new developments, I don't think anyone would disagree that TCP is defined by the IETF), and the IETF's role is to act as some kind of neutral ground or mediator and develop standards that the industry agrees with or is at least likely to implement. I think Microsoft and Netscape control HTML, and the IETF's job is to make them talk to each other and work together. I don't think the IETF can set up a group of people who have successfully created a home page, mandate a change that just about any technically qualified people will agree is only going to make the system harder to use, not involve MS or NS or even notify them, and expect that MS or NS will gladly shoot themselves in the foot and introduce this change. For every person who thinks the IETF is sovereign and people just have to shut up and obey, there are hundreds who believe like me, and they are the ones who send checks to the industry players. Companies generally have a higher degree of commitment to their customers than to organizations like the IETF, and this is normal. Many spam filters are formally in violation of the relevant RFCs, but people implement them anyway because this is what their customers want and they solve a real problem. Anyway I don't have the time to start a flame war about this. The bottom line is that we will not change LISTSERV, and we will take whatever steps may be necessary to fight any bad mouthing campaign launched against us as a result of this RFC. This is hardly the first time this sort of nonsense happens, back in the 80s there was even a consensus that LISTSERV violated RFCs and should be terminated because it is illegal, or at least modified to emulate a sendmail alias. It's been several years I haven't heard a single complaint in that sense, I think the last one was in 92 or so. Users are simply not interested in these issues, their buying criteria are totally unrelated, and nowadays ease of use always comes in the top three. Anything that decreases ease of use is guaranteed to be ignored by the industry. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 01:15:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA10986; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA10953 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA21728 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA14108 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:12:21 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:12:21 -0700 Message-ID: <14106.897898341@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric Thomas wrote: >Anyway I don't have the time to start a flame war about this... Gee! You coulda fooled me! :-) -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 01:26:41 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA12197; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA12190 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA15354; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 03:21:37 -0500 (CDT) To: Rich Kulawiec Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com> <19980613070218.A8638@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 15 Jun 1998 03:21:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: Rich Kulawiec's message of "Sat, 13 Jun 1998 07:02:18 -0400" Message-ID: Lines: 60 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.9/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "RK" == Rich Kulawiec writes: RK> Whether you endorse it or not doesn't matter. You're expected to abide RK> by it. Sorry, but this does not allow for the possibility of stupid RFCs. They do exist. Should I be shot for not complying with 1149? OK, not fair, but it is possible that an RFC specifies something dumb or unworkable in practise, or that it just isn't clear. RK> There are a heck of a lot of RFCs that *I* don't endorse either, but I RK> am expected to write software which complies with them. Well, before we freak here, lets be sure of one thing: the RFC is unclear. My interpretation is that it requires MLM software to sit at -request. (I really dislike the implication, but that's what I think it tells me to do.) Others hold that it just has to go somewhere; either the list owner or the MLM can sit there. Still others hold (by a combination of 2142 and 1211) that only the owner can sit there and software is forbidden from doing so. So we can't say if the behavior of an MLM is wrong or not, because we can't even agree on what the RFC says. Now, Eric will continue to make software that sends -request to the user and uses other addresses. This is bad according to what I think the RFC says. Is it bad according to what you think the RFC says? What about what Eric thinks it says? (Eric, I get the feeling that you think it just might mean what I think it means, and that bothers you.) (No Princess Bride quotes here, please.) RK> Then L-Soft's software will be considered in violation of Internet RK> standards, and I will recommend to every list manager, end user, RK> network adminstrator and everyone else that I come into contact with RK> that they avoid it or remove it until such time as it complies with RK> this RFC. By who's interpretation of said standard? We have no supreme court to turn to, you know. You shouldn't try to appoint yourself chief justice. But before slamming Eric's product, why not say what you think the RFC says? Please don't just take my word for it. This thread would be meaningless if you listened to Roger instead. RK> I find your attitude incredibly arrogant. How dare you willfully RK> distribute a product which you *know* violates one of the most relevant RK> RFCs? Hypotheticals are not generally useful, but here's one anyway: someone drafts an RFC specifying MLM command syntax. They choose the syntax of . How dare you put out another version of your MLM that doesn't alienate all of the people who currently run your MLM or are used to the syntax of your MLM. That would be violating RFCmumble! What, you weren't following ? RK> I'm sorry you weren't paying attention. Well, when someone proposes to tell me how to do my job, I expect them to at least pin up a notice in the lobby of my building, if they don't have the decency to send me a memo. - J< From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 07:11:34 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA19704; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA19688 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA39442 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:14:11 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806121414.QAA28334@pythagoras> References: <19980611202224.A21413@gsp.org> (message from Rich Kulawiec on Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:22:24 -0400) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:12:11 -0700 To: Norbert Bollow , rsk@gsp.org From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ron's idea Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:14 AM -0700 6/12/98, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Good point. Let's leave the current cooperative model of the internet > unchanged and make plans for a new network. You go right ahead. Don't wait for me. I'll catch up later. Really. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 07:17:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA19686; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA19679 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16132 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:14:08 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980613070218.A8638@gsp.org> References: <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com>; from Eric Thomas on Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 04:08:33PM +0200 <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:08:08 -0700 To: Rich Kulawiec , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: Eric Thomas Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 4:02 AM -0700 6/13/98, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > I find your attitude incredibly arrogant. How dare you willfully distribute > a product which you *know* violates one of the most relevant RFCs? > I'm sorry you weren't paying attention. Sorry, Rich. Right now, you sound a lot more arrogant than the Lsoft folks. An RFC designed without the knowledge or feedback of the key players that the RFC is designed to cover isn't worth the paper it's not written on. An RFC is an RFC, but not all RFCs are created equal. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 08:14:20 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA21581; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA21566 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA22159 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:59:54 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA05143 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:59:52 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806151459.JAA05143@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:59:52 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > Sorry, Rich. Right now, you sound a lot more arrogant than the Lsoft > folks. An RFC designed without the knowledge or feedback of the key > players that the RFC is designed to cover isn't worth the paper it's > not written on. I guess I'm unclear on several things here. Is this new RFC final or is it still in the 'draft' stage? Is the key portion cited here really that unclear, or is it just that some of us list managers don't know what it means or don't want to accept that meaning? When Chuq says it wasn't designed without feedback from the key players, what key players does he have in mind here? (It seems like the key players are the folks who write/maintain things like Listserv and majordomo, not those of us who just RUN mailing lists. That's like asking plumbers to help design toilets.) Like some others on this list, I'm a software developer myself. If I knew of a group that developed standards likely to affect products I develop, I'd sure try to take time to find out what they're talking about. In my case this applies to things like the FASB, HUD, and the IRS, as well as the folks who determine the SQL standard and the X.12 EDI standard. (And I'm ON several industry subcommittees for the last of these.) Anyone writing e-mail or list software who doesn't know what the IETF is and what it does is incredibly naive. I was aware that IETF was working on an RFC dealing with mailing lists, and I don't even write that kind of software. (And if memory serves me right, it has been discussed on this list before, too.) > An RFC is an RFC, but not all RFCs are created equal. And not all RFC's are clearly or elegantly written, either. Having waded through RFC 822 and subsequent ones dealing with e-mail a couple of times, there's a lot of turgid prose in there, and I've seen more than a few discussions on this list as to just what some of THOSE long-standing standards mean, too. If this new RFC is flawed, I think we need to work WITHIN the system to get it repaired, especially if it isn't finalized yet. But if the problem is one of PHILOSOPHY versus unimplementable mechanics, then at some point we will have to conform to the new standard, whether we like it or not. (And whether -REQUEST should/must be a human address or a mechanized one is a philosophical distinction, isn't it?) Lastly, how many complaints have we seen about Microsoft or AOL or [insert favorite target here] not conforming to this or that well-established RFC standard? It strikes me as a bit high and mighty for some of us to claim that we're not going to play ball just because we weren't invited to help write the rules. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 08:57:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA23158; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA23151 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA125045822; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:50:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199806151550.AA125045822@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: integrated delivery system [was: Finding A Listowner] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:23:38 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:50:21 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq writes: >I'm not looking for an integrated client. I'm looking for an integrated >system that delivers content to a users preferred client. Very >different things. One piece of content, multiple access points, by >user's preference. Delivered as appropriate. Chuq, how does this differ from a mailing list that's gatewayed to a newsgroups (bidirectionally) and offers ftp and http archives? -Mitch -- "Families can't trust Disney" From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 09:13:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA23207; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA23194 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id RAA23119; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:54:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id RAA03696; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:54:21 +0200 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:54:21 +0200 Message-Id: <199806151554.RAA03696@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: rsk@gsp.org CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <19980612182417.C4543@gsp.org> (message from Rich Kulawiec on Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:24:17 -0400) Subject: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote in reply to a question from me: > > Do you remember where this has been discussed, and who proposed this > > kinds of ideas? > > Vaguely. (Hey, I've had a long day. My brain is tired.) Most likely > candidates: check the archives of the com-priv and inet-access mailing > lists, which are the two places that I recall seeing this debated > at length. I don't recall any mailing list dedicated solely to this > topic, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't one. Thanks a lot for the pointer! In reading some of that old stuff I've come across a really good point which I had missed. This is from http://www.scomm.net/inet-access/1994-09/msg00038.html : People are much more eager to use a resource when it's not metered. : Most people won't use a service for anything but the most vital needs : when they hear the clock ticking in their heads. The net's ethic : is founded on volunteer work of all kinds, like the production of : FAQs such as this one, the moderation of newsgroups, and so on. : This work would be prohibitively expensive with metered use, and : the amount of information available would be much lower. Mike (and everyone else), is there a way around this kind of problem? Otherwise I will not pursue Mike Nolan's idea any further. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland Backup E-mail address: NB@POBOX.COM Churchplanters E-mail conference, see http://genesis.acu.edu/cplant/ From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 10:41:58 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA25516; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from foo.america.net (foo.america.net [199.170.121.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA25509 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PentiumPro (max1-8.shoreham.net [208.144.253.10]) by foo.america.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA21257 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980615112433.008459f0@mail.iecc.com> X-Sender: margy@mail.iecc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:38:25 -0400 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Margaret Levine Young Subject: Big Picture Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm new to this list. I help manage a ListProc installation with 100 lists and about 5,000 subscribers. It's become clear to me that as more and more new folks join lists, we could use a rethink of the tools that are available to mailing list site managers, list managers, and possibly list subscribers, to deal with mailing lists. For example, the current methods for seeing who's on lists, checking list traffic, spotting lists that have died, and spotting lists whose managers are no longer active (or even subscribed!) seem clunky to me. (If I'm missing some cool tools, please set me straight!) Have people here thought about what kinds of tools would make the job of site manager or list manager easier? I don't know whether these tools would be e-mail based, Web based, or telnet-based, but I need 'em! Thanks in advance for ideas, brainstorming, etc. Margy Levine Young Coauthor of "The Internet For Dummies," 5th Ed. Looking for kids' videos? Check out From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 10:48:12 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA25480; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA25470 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA30032 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:35:28 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806151550.AA125045822@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> References: Your message of "Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:23:38 PDT." Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:25:17 -0700 To: Mitch Collinsworth , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: integrated delivery system [was: Finding A Listowner] Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Chuq, how does this differ from a mailing list that's gatewayed to a >newsgroups (bidirectionally) and offers ftp and http archives? At a delivery level, not a lot. But one key piece for me is that the customer interface needs significant improvement. Away from multiple subscriptions to a single, consolidated user setup that's tied to a user, not an e-mail address, and which allows the users to do his configuration from a single environment. Most of what I'm working on isn't necessarily "new", per se (what is?) but the overlying philosophy is different in that I'm working towards setting it up so that users don't think in terms of "mail lists" or "web interfaces" or "discussion boards". That's geek-think, and while that has a definite place in life, I'm trying to think beyond it. We, the techies, have to worry about transport layers and list setups and interoperability. I want my customers simply to be able to say "what information do I want?" and "how do I want it delivered?" and hide all of the other magic from them. So it's not necessarily new, but tighter, better integration to make all those pieces function together well, and technology that lets a user USE the tools instead of having to learn them... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + (Hockey fan? ) From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 11:27:17 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA26912; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA26878 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA26408 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:20:52 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA14710 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:20:49 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806151820.NAA14710@celery.tssi.com> Subject: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:20:49 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > : People are much more eager to use a resource when it's not metered. I'm not sure there is much evidence supporting this for things outside of the Internet: Most libraries are free, but their use is declining while book sales continue to increase. The cost of cards and postage keeps going up, but I still get a wall full of Christmas cards every December. (And send a like number.) My wife has a cell phone that costs about 30 cents/minute to use, it didn't take many weeks for us all to develop the habit of calling her on it for whatever reason, totally oblivious to the fact that the meter is running. She's even prone to call me from the cell phone when sitting next to a desk phone. Pay-per-view services are the fastest growing segment of the cable TV business, and likely to become even more so, as I suspect/fear that many sporting events will start to move in that direction, some already have. Even though I now live in Nebraska, I'm still a die-hard Cubs fan. Would I pay a few dollars to see Kerry Wood pitch against the Brewers tonight? (The game isn't on WGN TV, but is on something called CLTV, which isn't available here.) Probably. The existence of Internet chess servers has not yet killed off postal chess, though I suspect it may have cut back on the number of non-serious chessplayers participating. There is a distinction between 'FREE' Internet service and the two types of paid-for service. If YOU don't pay the bills, of COURSE it's free, TO YOU, and you feel no need to conserve on its usage. Conversely, all-you-can-eat is a popular idea, and IMHO it also tends to encourage overconsumption. (And IMHO spam is a form of overconsumption. If bulk mail was free or basically a fixed charge per mailer, I'd need a much larger mailbox out in front of my house, but I could put in a paper burning stove.) As a former student of small business management in grad school, I know that all-you-can-eat organizations are much more prone to fail due to improper pricing than ala carte pricing organizations. Even the big boys in ISP service have waffled between metered, somewhat metered, and unmetered service, mostly winding up somewhere in the middle. I've lost track of how folks like AOL price, but I have a $18/month all-you-can-eat local ISP account, plus a 64K ISDN dedicated connection, which costs a lot more. And I'm very conscious of the bandwidth consumption on the latter, since if I reach the point where I exceed the capacity of the 64K circuit it will cost me another $150 or so per month to go up to 128K. And I now that as net connection charges go, that's still small potatoes. A friend works at an online game company, the list of net connections they have is staggering to me as an individual net user, and I presume the monthly cost would be equally staggering. For large companies (and REALLY wired individuals), the Internet is essentially a metered service now, it's just that the unit of measure is very large, being measured in things like T-1 and T-3 connections. In effect what I'm doing is proposing a change in the granularity of the model. > : Most people won't use a service for anything but the most vital needs > : when they hear the clock ticking in their heads. The net's ethic > : is founded on volunteer work of all kinds, like the production of > : FAQs such as this one, the moderation of newsgroups, and so on. > : This work would be prohibitively expensive with metered use, and > : the amount of information available would be much lower. > > Mike (and everyone else), is there a way around this kind of problem? > Otherwise I will not pursue Mike Nolan's idea any further. First of all, it depends on the cost structure, which I admit I have not attempted to work out. If I take my $18/month fixed rate account and divide it back by all my incoming and outgoing e-mail (excluding spam), all the newsgroup posts I read and write, and all the web sites I hit, I doubt any one transaction would cost me more than $0.002, nor that I would develop much avoidance to using the net because of that miniscule unit cost. Except for the stereotypical father, most people don't go around turning off lights the moment they are unneeded, despite the fact that the meter is still running. That's because the unit of pricing is very small compared to the perceived value of leaving the light on while you go into the other room for a while. The same thing can be true for an economically based pricing model for Internet usage. Would you pay $0.002 to receive this message? Depending on how you value your time, it may cost many orders of magnitude beyond that to READ and RESPOND to it. Also, there should be ways to structure the costs so that SOME types of transactions are borne by 3rd parties or by the net in general. (Currently most transactions are effectively so structured, and IMHO the transfer of payments system is inefficient, at best.) As to things like newsgroup moderators, yes there should be some way of handling them equitably. But I know of a few moderators who perform their tasks on COMPANY time, and I suspect that cost far outweighs the incremental cost of networking services it takes to moderate a newgroup. The same thing is true for the posting of FAQ's. As to the e-mail exchange which happens in the drafting or revision of a FAQ, that probably represents a small fraction of those individuals e-mail usage, so any incremental charges involved would also be minor. But as far as newsgroups are concerned, I think Chuq is right about their being a dinosaur, it's a question of when and how they become extinct, and what evolves to fill that need. Right now there are ISP's and others devoting considerable expense to 'helping the net'. (I know of one company that a few years back had a T-1 and several computers basically to support NNTP feeds to other companies, despite this having next to nothing to do with the mission of that company or even much internal value within the company.) Would these folks still be willing to pay the charges for posting FAQ's and hosting moderators if this service was transactionally priced, or more accurately priced on a much smaller incremental unit? Chuq, would Apple? -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 11:41:53 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA27177; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA27170 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA26713 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:37:12 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA15425 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:37:10 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806151837.NAA15425@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: integrated delivery system To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:37:10 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > We, the techies, have to worry about transport layers and list setups and > interoperability. I want my customers simply to be able to say "what > information do I want?" and "how do I want it delivered?" and hide all of > the other magic from them. So it's not necessarily new, but tighter, > better integration to make all those pieces function together well, and > technology that lets a user USE the tools instead of having to learn them... Just like I don't need to know how a dynamo or nuclear power plant works in order to turn on the lights, or know how phone company switches work to make a phone call. The only issue I see is that it presumes that everyone is conforming to some generally accepted standards. A touch tone phone doesn't work on a pulse-only line (if there are any left), nor does my electric clock radio work in Italy. If there were generally accepted standards, we wouldn't be arguing about whether -request reaches a human or a mechanical interface, would we? :-) Chuq, if/when you get to the stage of needing help on this, let me know. Coming up with a model that handles both the techie aspects and the user aspects is critical to its success. We're probably starting to range a bit too far from the basic subject of this list, is there another forum for getting into the details further? -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 13:41:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA00536; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kirkwood.hoosier.net (kirkwood.hoosier.net [206.106.64.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA00529 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (lev@localhost) by kirkwood.hoosier.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03760; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:43:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:43:13 -0500 (EST) From: P Kayak X-Sender: lev@kirkwood.hoosier.net Reply-To: P Kayak To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Mitch Collinsworth , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: integrated delivery system [was: Finding A Listowner] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > We, the techies, have to worry about transport layers and list setups and > interoperability. I want my customers simply to be able to say "what information do I want?" > and "how do I want it delivered?" and hide all of > the other magic [reminder: the medium is the message] > from them. So it's...tighter...integration If you're not careful you will find yourself (or maybe not) handling information thought to be completely "context-free." This would be the kind :)... of information where a user could not guess at any political slant of the fact-provider. And where the user cannot trace hir way back to a particular fact-former if wishing to follow up and ask further. I think (book-) library theorists worry about such as this. |||:-) Clean, high-speed systems often go stripping off contexts. Even when they don't have to. Britannican anyway makes a densely packed item, yet does send "control information" along too. So it can be done. (I'd say now that I think, the publisher professional seeks to divulge as much of the magic which he uses as possible.) Now as long as individuals do not get scoffed at for being FIDO-net users, your project offers promise, I'm ready to grant, for making life better. >From your post I was hearing for a moment a questioner not bothering to go by _steps_ when you said "what information do I want?" cheers - Paul To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man. : - Oliver Wendell Holmes : :_Nine Stories_, JDSalinger=**** ..................................: From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 14:41:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA01664; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA01655 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA28701; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 16:39:00 -0500 (CDT) To: nolan@tssi.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806151459.JAA05143@celery.tssi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 15 Jun 1998 16:39:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: Mike Nolan's message of "Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:59:52 -0500 (CDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.9/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "MN" == Mike Nolan writes: MN> I guess I'm unclear on several things here. Is this new RFC final or MN> is it still in the 'draft' stage? It's not 'new', and it's not a draft: 2142 Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions. D. Crocker. May 1997. (Format: TXT=12195 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) MN> Is the key portion cited here really that unclear, or is it just that MN> some of us list managers don't know what it means or don't want to MN> accept that meaning? Well, read it for yourself. What do you think? I think the fact that reasonable people can disagree about its meaning would seem to indicate that its meaning isn't absolute. MN> It strikes me as a bit high and mighty for some of us to claim that MN> we're not going to play ball just because we weren't invited to help MN> write the rules. If we can't even agree on what the rules tell us to do, how are we supposed to play by them? - J< From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 15:12:07 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA02114; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA02103 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29886 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:09:26 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:54:52 -0700 To: P Kayak , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: integrated delivery system [was: Finding A Listowner] Cc: Mitch Collinsworth , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:43 PM -0700 6/15/98, P Kayak wrote: >Clean, high-speed systems often go stripping off contexts. Even when they >don't have to. Something to be avoided, but there's also unnecessary context that should be stripped. The fun part is finding the useful medium. (unnecessary context is things like unedited messages in replies, 90% of the HTML styling in e-mail, that sort of thing...) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + (Hockey fan? ) From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 17:56:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA05165; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA05139 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA47970 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:58:07 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980615112433.008459f0@mail.iecc.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:35:40 -0700 To: Margaret Levine Young , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Big Picture Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:38 AM -0700 6/15/98, Margaret Levine Young wrote: > I'm new to this list. I help manage a ListProc installation with 100 lists > and about 5,000 subscribers. First problem is, you're on listproc. But then, I promised myself not to rant at that server any more.... > For example, the current methods for seeing who's on lists, checking list > traffic, spotting lists that have died, and spotting lists whose managers > are no longer active (or even subscribed!) seem clunky to me. (If I'm > missing some cool tools, please set me straight!) > > Have people here thought about what kinds of tools would make the job of > site manager or list manager easier? I don't know whether these tools would > be e-mail based, Web based, or telnet-based, but I need 'em! Listproc is clunky in general. But more specifically, when you tie yourself to a proprietary e-mail system, you tend to get stuck with what the authors give you. Lots of this stuff IS going on, but I don't think much of it is being done at Listproc or ListServ, because those systems aren't terribly open (and it doesn't make lots of sense to write neat hacks to a commercial server). ListServ is better at this, because the Listserv folks ARE actively working on stuff, but you're still heavily tied to what the company does for you. But take a look at what's going on around majordomo, and you'll see lots of neet tools coming around, because it IS open, available and hackable. And if you want to take advantage of that stuff, you probably ought to think about going where the action is. IMHO, of course. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 18:11:30 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA05164; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA05138 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA43632 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:58:10 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806151837.NAA15425@celery.tssi.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:52:00 -0700 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: integrated delivery system Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:37 AM -0700 6/15/98, Mike Nolan wrote: > The only issue I see is that it presumes that everyone is conforming to > some generally accepted standards. Onl within a self-contained system. Within that system stuff has to conform and be consistent. Outside of the system, you can do non-comforming things with some limitations. One major one being that you can't do things that cause user confusion with other, existing, related systems (which is the start of my rant on mail lists that accept admin commands on the posting address, thereby setting a user expecation that hoses over OTHER lists....). If you look like a mail list, you should act like a mail list, at least to the point where a user familiar with mail lists won't either get hosed on your site, or users used to your site won't get hosed elsewhere. > If there were generally accepted standards, we wouldn't be arguing about > whether -request reaches a human or a mechanical interface, would we? :-) Exactly. And it's exacerbated because mail lists all do things a bit differently. majordomo has changes frmo version to version, listproc, listserv, liststar, etc, etc,. All are 90% common, more or less, but that other 10% will kill you... In my stuff, I've tried VERY hard to build systems that, if you're familiar with "how it works", it'll work for you. But while doing that, I've built other entrances that users who don't have majordomo memorized cna use without having to memorize majordomo... And if I do this well enough, well maybe users will be able to forget majordomo and just use that other stuff. But I won't break it as long as it makes sense to keep it around... > Chuq, if/when you get to the stage of needing help on this, let me know. > Coming up with a model that handles both the techie aspects and the user > aspects is critical to its success. We're probably starting to range a bit > too far from the basic subject of this list, is there another forum for > getting into the details further? Thanks, Mike. I don't have a forum for this. At some point, I expect to. Once I get some of the new technology up. I figure it's a great thing to use to prototype some of this... (the old "eat your own dog food" mentality...) -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 18:15:56 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA05166; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA05137 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA47976 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:58:09 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806151459.JAA05143@celery.tssi.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:43:58 -0700 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:59 AM -0700 6/15/98, Mike Nolan wrote: > When Chuq says it wasn't > designed without feedback from the key players, what key players does he > have in mind here? To my knowledge, the ListServ folks had never heard of the RFC. Neither have the majordomo people. I don't know about the ListProc people (but I don't care, either... grin). But between ListServ and Majordomo, that's probably about 90-95% of the extant mail servers out there. I also am pretty sure that neither the ListStar or LetterRip Pro folks were consulted on the RFC, and those are the two main mail servers on the Mac. If you don't ask the experts for feedback and advice, don't be surprised when the experts ignore you. > Anyone writing e-mail or list software who doesn't know what the IETF is > and what it does is incredibly naive. But IETF does lots more than e-mail. It's reasonable to assume that if you're going to write a mail list standard, SOMEONE in the mail list community is going to be consulted, and generally, they'll pass the word to get everyone else involved. And that didn't happen. > I was aware that IETF was working > on an RFC dealing with mailing lists, And how will you be aware of it if they don't tell anyone? > If this new RFC is flawed, I think we need to work WITHIN the system > to get it repaired, especially if it isn't finalized yet. And I don't have a problemw ith that myself, although if I consider it badly flawed, I won't implement it until it's fixed. But just because I won't adopt it now doesn't mean I'm not willing to try to improve it. And that's the proper attitude to take. but if you feel it ought to be adopted ANYWAY, well, refusal to adopt is one of the main pressure points we have to FORCE necessary updates. If we give that up, why should they bother? > Lastly, how many complaints have we seen about Microsoft or AOL or > [insert favorite target here] not conforming to this or that >well-established > RFC standard? a great example of the old carrot/stick problem. There are no sticks to force anyone to implement this stuff. So unless there are carrots, people won't. And the carrot to an RFC is it makes life better for users impacted by the RFC (and users include admins...). But you can't make anyone. You have to convince folks it's in their best interest. >It strikes me as a bit high and mighty for some of us to > claim that we're not going to play ball just because we weren't invited > to help write the rules. Bad misinterpretation, Mike. I didn't help write RFC822, but I adopt it fully. This isn't a Not Invented Here problem. This is a "this is a stupid RFC problem. And it's stupid in many ways because the people who wrote it did so while not involving the people most able to help build an RFC that worked right. If they'd gotten it right without us, we'd STILL adopt it, just to spite them. But it's not that we weren't involved. It's that they weren't involved AND THEY BOTCHED IT. it's the botched part that causes us to spurn it, not the not involved part. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 18:20:54 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA05167; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA05136 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16976 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:57:40 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806151820.NAA14710@celery.tssi.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:31:38 -0700 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I'm not sure there is much evidence supporting this for things outside of > the Internet: > > Most libraries are free, but their use is declining while book sales continue > to increase. > The cost of cards and postage keeps going up, but I still get a wall full > of Christmas cards every December. (And send a like number.) Which is a great example of how this stuff gets misinterpreted. it's not cost. it's cost vs. perceived value. Users don't see as much utility in a library (however, go into one of the large Barnes & Noble's and see how many folks are there using it as a library. And B&N encourages it...), but they do in cards. Libraries are a bad example, because of all sorts of factors. some of those include that while libraries are free, budget issues in the overseeing organizations (mostly cities) has meant that purchases are reduced, hours are reduced, convenience is reduced, etc, etc. And outside factors, from the internet to B&N, have replaced the library as a basic research point and/or social location. The declining use of libraries has many, many differing reasons behind it, none of which have to do with cost.... Cost is a useless rating tool. VALUE is, because if a person feels the cost is worth it, they'll pay it. And if not, it doesn't matter if it's free. Just ask all those people who thought they'd make money with subscription-based web sites.... Other than the Wall Street Journal, how many have? > Pay-per-view services are the fastest growing segment of the cable TV > business, and likely to become even more so, as I suspect/fear that > many sporting events will start to move in that direction, some already have. But only within specific market niches. Every attempt to move out of those niches has failed miserably, and continue to. Big Event things (boxing, for instance), and movies, and the latter works mostly in terms of convenience compared to hitting up Blockbuster. > Even though I now live in Nebraska, I'm still a die-hard Cubs fan. >Would I pay > a few dollars to see Kerry Wood pitch against the Brewers tonight? >(The game > isn't on WGN TV, but is on something called CLTV, which isn't available > here.) Probably. Chicagoland TV. Basically, local cable access, which is a way to spoof baseball restrictions. If you have C band, look around, they'll have a feed unencrypted. > The existence of Internet chess servers has not yet killed off postal > chess, though I suspect it may have cut back on the number of non-serious > chessplayers participating. And more importantly, how many people have JOINED postal chess in the last 3 years? You won't generally kill these things off. You will, however, watch the old population turn grey and die off, because what happens is you mostly do NOT suck people out of their existing setups, you watch the new generation of those people not join up -- they do something else, or some other aspect of it. > As to things like newsgroup moderators, yes there should be some way > of handling them equitably. Hold this thought... > But as far as newsgroups are concerned, I think Chuq is right about their > being a dinosaur, it's a question of when and how they become extinct, > and what evolves to fill that need. Yes, but fi you look below, there's even a way to make USENET useful again.... > Right now there are ISP's and others devoting considerable expense to >'helping > the net'. > Would these folks still be willing to > pay the charges for posting FAQ's and hosting moderators if this service was > transactionally priced, or more accurately priced on a much smaller >incremental > unit? Chuq, would Apple? Heck, most of the time, the company simply didn't know it was paying for it. It was usually a few people in a key place and a budget they hid somewhere -- most of the development of this stuff didn't come from a COMPANY, but from people within a company who believed, and either did it on the side, convinced a manager to support it, or simply hid it from everyone -- and you can tell just how common that was by the number of sites who either shrunk radically or disappeared when the key person moved on... (anyone remember when nsc.com was a pretty major regional USENET hub?) Could I convince Apple to pay for something like this? Probably not. Would I try? probably not. Most likely, the people involved would simply do it, and it'd get lost in the midst of the overall networking budget. Unless you have anal managers watching the bitflow, chances are nobody'd ever notice. And if you do, the folks most likely to pull this kind of service is unlikely to be at that company long, anyway. That kind of, ahem, fascist net environment tends to hurt morale, and folks who feel the net is important and are competent enough to get better jobs will. But the, ahem, IS weenies who block ESPN.com from corporate intranets and ban solitaire from the windows 95 disks don't care... But I'm about to digress, and I'll spare you. (short answer to this: if the costs are reasonable, corporate approval is irrelevant, just as corporate approval to subscribe to this mailing list is in most places. And places that DO keep you from subscriging to lists like this, you don't wanna work at, anyway... right?) Back to the thought you're holding. Mike's idea won't fly (IMHO), because the genie is out of the bottle, and no matter how much you might want to overlay a kind of pay-for for this stuff, it won't replace what already exists, any more than AOL switching from unlimited time to metered time won't happen voluntarily -- AOL has to REPLACE it, and since they own the service, they can. Users won't voluntarily give up something they see as free, problems and all, for something they pay for. And there's no central authority to force them to take on the new system. No sticks? Invent carrots. And here, we have no sticks. And that means you need to think in terms of technology that individuals can implement for themselves, not technologies that have to be emplaced upon others for them to work. that's why filtering issues are such a key, and why spamblocking is doing it that way. I can't stop spam -- I can decide not ot take it on my site. But back to the moderator concept, and tying it into perceived value and all that. One idea that got floated centuries ago (okay, back in the 80's). I believe I was the first to mention it, and it ended up being discussed in an issue of "Login;" by Erik Fair. It was the concept of the Accolade, which at that point was aimed at USENET -- the idea being that users who saw USENET articles they liked could send an "accolade" message, yet another new control message. And other users who wanted to base their newsreading habit on users they trusted could set up their newsreaders to show "accoladed" messages from the appropriate users (or avoid de-accoladed messages...) Accolades *are*, in fact, in use today in various ways. They're not new to the net, either (what is a book review or restaurant review but an accolade in a newspaper?) -- the RBL is an accolade system, where an admin has agreed to let a remote organization define "acceptable" e-mail systems. Any time you use someone's hotlinks page on a web site, that's another form of accolade. Web sites that track information and condense or keep pointers to things are accolade sites (technically speaking, so is an issue of "time" magazine, since you're basing your reading on the choices the editor makes. Editors are, effectively, accoladers. And that's a great paradigm to use here. And also a great example of just how loose and fast I'm playing with terminology... Kids, this man is a professional. don't try this at home. Closed track. Wear your seatbelts) so, how do you handle moderators equitably? you hired them to filter things for you. use the shareware concept, or micropayments, or whatever. let people set themselves up as arbiters of content, and you evaluate them, and if you find them worthy, you leverage your use off of the time they spend pre-processing content... And if you find it worthy, pay them, either donate-ware or subscription. Good web sites of the kind I'm thinking ar eplaces like http://www.macintouch.com/ or http://www.tbtf.com/, an there are even meta-consolidators, like http://www.macnn.com/, which consolidate sites that consolidate information ( http://www.macsurfer.com/ is the epitomy of meta-consolidators in the mac space...) There are always people willing to blaze trails, whether into new technologies, or by doing the research for you. Find people who think like you and build information sets you find useful, and then find ways to make it worth their while to continue. That is a much more effective soluion than attempting to revolutionize "the net" when the changes will require a big, big stick and you only have a penknife to start carving with. But if you carve up a few carrots... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 19:11:49 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA07466; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA07449 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gillette ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id UAA27300; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:14:08 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: RFC2142 considered harmless Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:14:23 -0400 Message-ID: <000201bd98cc$7a9c5ce0$017b7b0a@gillette> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <199806160121.SAA06203@honor.greatcircle.com> Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This is the only part of 2142 that MLM authors need to worry about: --------------------------- Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop requests and other meta-queries can be sent. For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is: there MUST be the administrative mailbox name: Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo and Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with the software on that system -- usually the name of the software -- rather than a particular list on that system. Use of such mailbox names requires participants to know the type of list software employed at the site. This is problematic. Consequently: LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED, INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE MAILBOX NAMES. --------------------------- So all 2142 is saying is that you need to support a -request address for each list, IN ADDITION TO whatever package-specific addresses you create. This is neither unclear nor difficult to implement. Any developer who hasn't done it could do so in 10 seconds without harming the rest of their work. Any developer who is (a) aware of the RFC and (b) refuses to support a -request address anyway, is just being rude, and the good news is that the rest of the Internet community can (and likely will) promulgate field fixes (maybe nothing more than an entry in /etc/aliases) to bring the recalcitrant packages into compliance. RFC2142 is clearly one of those semi-wishful "LO! I bring order to chaos" documents that appear now and then, but it's not downright evil. Armchair demagogues would do well to remember that the purpose of RFC's, like the Internet as a whole, is interoperability. There have always been people who act as though interoperability is a quaint, wimpy hobby, but over the long haul it always wins. From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 19:42:05 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA08010; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [209.157.82.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA08003 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [209.157.82.5]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-980201) with ESMTP id TAA18510; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3585DB3F.469638A7@postmodern.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:41:07 -0700 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: RFC2142 considered harmless References: <000201bd98cc$7a9c5ce0$017b7b0a@gillette> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Tom Neff wrote: > [...] > So all 2142 is saying is that you need to support a -request address > for each list, IN ADDITION TO whatever package-specific addresses you > create. This is neither unclear nor difficult to implement. True. And for those of us who have been ranting about -request for the last decade+, since it has been a very widely used convention for a long time, it's a big plus. The only problem I have is with the word "support". What exactly does that mean? The preamble that says, "Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop requests and other meta-queries can be sent" is somewhat annoying, since in the era of MLMs, it is very likely that those are somewhat separate functions. Add/drop requests should go directly to the MLM, and meta-queries like "is this a closed list?"/"what is it about?"/"hey, it looks like my subscription didn't go through" should go to a human (possibly after an info file or FAQ is returned). I interpret this section to permit what we have been doing at greatcircle.com all along, which is that -request is "supported" by an auto-answer program that tells you basic information about the list, including how to subscribe (i.e., send a request to Majordomo), and how to reach a human with questions. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 20:11:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA08899; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA08892 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05224 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:12:58 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA25951 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:12:57 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806160312.WAA25951@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:12:57 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Back to the thought you're holding. Mike's idea won't fly (IMHO), > because the genie is out of the bottle, and no matter how much you > might want to overlay a kind of pay-for for this stuff, it won't > replace what already exists, any more than AOL switching from unlimited > time to metered time won't happen voluntarily -- AOL has to REPLACE it, > and since they own the service, they can. Users won't voluntarily give > up something they see as free, problems and all, for something they pay > for. And there's no central authority to force them to take on the new > system. So maybe the focus has to be on inter-ISP pricing, and let the ISP's continue to offer prix fixe, at least until the next time they all revise their pricing models. (Every 2-3 years, it seems.) As I said up front, I'm philosophising online here, in search of a way to put the Internet on a more stable economic basis and deal with certain problems IMHO caused by the current economic structure. If the best arguments against me are that it won't fly "because that's not the way things work and people won't accept it", and not that my idea isn't technologically feasible, then I would remind folks that there are countless ideas that received that same judgement up front. IBM turned down the photocopy machine because they decided it wouldn't sell, so the inventor went on to start up a little company called Xerox. A question for those who know more than I (probably most of the subscribers to this list): What percentage of spammers have their own IP connection versus sending from some ISP? One flaw in my idea, which I'm rather surprised nobody has raised yet, is that it won't do much about spammers who have their own full fledged net connection. > for them to work. that's why filtering issues are such a key, and why > spamblocking is doing it that way. I can't stop spam -- I can decide > not ot take it on my site. But filtering is a method doomed to either failure or perpetual revision. It's a game of fox and hounds, and right now the wrong side is winning. > There are always people willing to blaze trails, whether into new > technologies, or by doing the research for you. And in a sense, that's what I'm trying to stimulate here, a different way of thinking about net structures and pricing, even if a lot of it is recycled old ideas. Does it represent a major change? Sure. Is a major change in the cards in the future anyway? Yup, if only because we're gonna keep running short of bandwidth again and again and out of IP address space sometime. And if you want to think about a major change that may happen some time in the next 10-20 years and affect us all, the people who philosophise about the future of the phone system predict that they could run COMPLETELY out of 7 digit numbers in less than 15 years, forcing a shift to 8 or 9 digits for all of us, worldwide. (I think there are areas in Europe where the change has already started, but not necessarily for the same reason.) Just THINK of all the infrastructure and conventions that will upset! -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 20:56:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA09598; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (SKIGO.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.156]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id UAA09591 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04015; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:45:28 -0400 Message-Id: <9806160345.AA04015@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: nolan@tssi.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Jun 98 22:12:57 CDT." <199806160312.WAA25951@celery.tssi.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 98 23:45:28 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth X-Mts: smtp Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >And if you want to think about a major change that may happen some time in >the next 10-20 years and affect us all, the people who philosophise about >the future of the phone system predict that they could run COMPLETELY out >of 7 digit numbers in less than 15 years, forcing a shift to 8 or 9 digits >for all of us, worldwide. (I think there are areas in Europe where the >change has already started, but not necessarily for the same reason.) >Just THINK of all the infrastructure and conventions that will upset! Hello... Europe has variable length phone numbers. Has for at least as long as I've had reason to phone in that direction. Are the US and Canada the only countries with fixed length phone numbers? Maybe we should adopt the metric system on Jan 1, 2000. That will give people something to do while the economy is recovering from Y2K... :-) -Mitch -- "Families can't trust Disney" From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 21:07:00 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA09635; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA09628 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05721 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:48:41 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA26105 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:48:40 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806160348.WAA26105@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner (fwd) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:48:40 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > It's not 'new', and it's not a draft: > > 2142 Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions. D. > Crocker. May 1997. (Format: TXT=12195 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED > STANDARD) Um, maybe my English isn't all that great, but the word 'PROPOSED' would sure seem to imply that this isn't quite FINAL yet. Thus, if we have problems, and at least some of us do, and we know where to complain, and surely some of us know both where and how to do THAT, then there is still time, brother! And based on the stuff Michael B. posted, it sounds like his interpretation is completely valid and within the letter of the RFC, though only the drafter could say for sure if it is within the intended spirit. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 21:17:18 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA09695; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA09677 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA44176 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:57:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806160312.WAA25951@celery.tssi.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:50:07 -0700 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:12 PM -0700 6/15/98, Mike Nolan wrote: > So maybe the focus has to be on inter-ISP pricing, and let the ISP's > continue to offer prix fixe, at least until the next time they all revise > their pricing models. (Every 2-3 years, it seems.) It's all competition. You can compete on price, or features, or some combination. Fact is, you can fatten the margins if you give users something they want, because they'll pay a premium for it. And while some people shop on price alone, that's really a rather small percentage. Everyone wants to pay the least possible -- for a reasonable product. But definitions of "reasonable" differ. Otherwise, everyone would be sleeping in Motel 6's on vacation, and driving Kia's. > As I said up front, I'm philosophising online here, in search of a way to > put the Internet on a more stable economic basis and deal with certain > problems IMHO caused by the current economic structure. so am I. And suggesting things to think about. > If the best arguments against me are that it won't fly "because that's not > the way things work and people won't accept it", and not that my idea > isn't technologically feasible, then I would remind folks that there are > countless ideas that received that same judgement up front. IBM turned > down the photocopy machine because they decided it wouldn't sell, > so the inventor went on to start up a little company called Xerox. Yes, and how many machines got turned down and DIDN'T sell? Because one in a thousand actually worked gives reason to hope. But 999 of those thousand did fail, which should remind folks to look for ways to minimize the risk and improve their odds. > A question for those who know more than I (probably most of the subscribers > to this list): What percentage of spammers have their own IP connection > versus sending from some ISP? One flaw in my idea, which I'm rather > surprised nobody has raised yet, is that it won't do much about spammers > who have their own full fledged net connection. The larger, sophisticated ones do. But more importantly, a huge percentage of the spam comes from the large internetwork connections of places like uunet, by people who aren't even signed up to uunet, but who hook in because they can, and then relay through other, open sites. Take a look at the number of spam received lines with "cust*.uunet.com" in them. they're all dialups, not machines. And spam software's written to allow people to dial in, then start stuffing SMTP commands down an open relay's throat. Technically speaking, these folks have NO ISP. They're hijacking UUnet's modem and network, and hijacking someone else's sendmail connection. That both uunet and the ISP are doing stupid things by not locking things down is a different issue, but not one you'll solve by trying to beat up on ISP's. Because most of the wide-open sendmails aren't ISP's. they're things like schools and overseas backwaters and sites that aren't closely watched in the first place, or simply don't care. > But filtering is a method doomed to either failure or perpetual revision. > It's a game of fox and hounds, and right now the wrong side is winning. Arguable. I haven't evaluated sendmail 8.9 yet, but I know how much worse it used to be. My spam filters are old, adn the spammers have mostly gotten around them, which points out the difficulty in all this, but if there are two options: stopping the source or filtering at the client, and you have no control of the source, what do you suggest? > > There are always people willing to blaze trails, whether into new > > technologies, or by doing the research for you. > > And in a sense, that's what I'm trying to stimulate here, a different > way of thinking about net structures and pricing, even if a lot of it > is recycled old ideas. Well, for spam stuff like this, isn't the anti-spam lists a better place to stimulate than list-managers? Because spam-on-mail lists is a minor aspect of overall spam, and would be solved as a side effect. And the anti-spammers have a much larger body of knowledge on spam than this list does. It seems this is probably not the best place for it... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 21:26:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA10465; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 21:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA10450 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 21:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA39378 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 21:22:45 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806160344.UAA30464@plaidworks.com> References: Message of Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:35:40 -0700 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 21:16:54 -0700 To: Eric Thomas , Margaret Levine Young , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Big Picture Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 6:12 PM -0700 6/15/98, Eric Thomas wrote: > Chuq, I'll let your other comments slip through without starting a flame > war :-), but THAT is a really silly thing to say! Hey, I wasn't only expecting you to pop up and prove me wrong, I was depending on it. > staff list ;-) I don't think you can say that there are automatically > more or better tools for Majordomo just because it's open, available and > hackable. LISTSERV was free until 1993 (including freely available source > code) and I haven't noticed a change in the development of free tools > when it went commercial. How widely available are these things? Is there a web site? and/or mail lists to discuss it? I'm not being silly -- I don't know, and I'd like to find out whether it's because it's not there or whether I'm just not plugged in to listserv. Probably the latter, but if I'm wondering, I'm sure others are, too... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 22:11:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA12052; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mushi.colo.neosoft.com (mushi.colo.neosoft.com [206.109.6.82]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id WAA12045 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 239 invoked from network); 16 Jun 1998 05:11:08 -0000 Received: from bonkers.neosoft.com (HELO bonkers.taronga.com) (root@206.109.2.48) by mushi.colo.neosoft.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 1998 05:11:08 -0000 Received: (from arielle@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id XAA04536 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:39:34 -0500 From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) Message-Id: <199806160439.XAA04536@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: The -request debate To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:39:33 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't mind if someone has list-request aimed at a person or an auto- responder, so long as you get something or someone that responds back (although there are too many listowners out there who simply do not read list admin mail/write back - different issue). What I don't like are implementations that point it at the listserver or at an autosubscriber. From list-managers-owner Mon Jun 15 22:26:29 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA12061; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mushi.colo.neosoft.com (mushi.colo.neosoft.com [206.109.6.82]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id WAA12054 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 241 invoked from network); 16 Jun 1998 05:12:00 -0000 Received: from bonkers.neosoft.com (HELO bonkers.taronga.com) (root@206.109.2.48) by mushi.colo.neosoft.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 1998 05:12:00 -0000 Received: (from arielle@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id XAA03415 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:35:24 -0500 From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) Message-Id: <199806160435.XAA03415@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:35:23 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >the people who philosophise about > >the future of the phone system predict that they could run COMPLETELY out > >of 7 digit numbers in less than 15 years, forcing a shift to 8 or 9 digits The area where I live (Houston) went to mandatory 10 digit dialing about six months ago. That's area code + 7 digit phone number for local calls. (I hear it's the cell phones and pagers that are using up all the phone numbers) > Hello... Europe has variable length phone numbers. So does Australia. From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 06:56:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA23304; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 06:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA23297 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 06:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA14708 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 08:47:26 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA00693 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 08:47:25 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806161347.IAA00693@celery.tssi.com> Subject: The -request debate To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 08:47:24 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Stephanie da Silva wrote: > > I don't mind if someone has list-request aimed at a person or an auto- > responder, so long as you get something or someone that responds back > (although there are too many listowners out there who simply do not > read list admin mail/write back - different issue). > > What I don't like are implementations that point it at the listserver > or at an autosubscriber. I guess I'm not clear what the difference is between an 'autoresponder' and an 'autosubscriber'. Some kind of automated intelligence at the -request address strikes me as a Good Thing. And if that encompasses looking for obvious subscribe and unsubscribe requests (and returning a confirmation cookie for the former), then that strikes me as a Very Good Thing. In my case, anything that doesn't readily parse returns the help file, which among other things says that if you can't get the desired results write to [my address]. But it also says to let me know that you've already tried the -request address, because my default response to that kind of e-mail is to send the exact same help file. (And I made it easy for myself by setting up listinfo@tssi.com as an address which does that, so all I have to do is 'bounce' mail to it.) Intelligence at the LIST address to try to catch some of the 'help me get uns*bscribed from this &^%^%$ list' messages is also a Good Idea. A question for Chuq: How do you build properly formatted action requests by clueless/impatient subscribers into your new paradigm? From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 09:45:39 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA25582; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA25565 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA14479; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 12:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980616124029.A14411@gsp.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 12:40:29 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Big Picture References: <3.0.32.19980615112433.008459f0@mail.iecc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Chuq Von Rospach on Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 05:35:40PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 05:35:40PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > But take a look at what's going on around majordomo, and you'll see > lots of neet tools coming around, because it IS open, available and > hackable. And if you want to take advantage of that stuff, you probably > ought to think about going where the action is. Let me add a *strong* second to this opinion. Majordomo, because the source code is freely available, is rapidly evolving. Not that I necessarily agree with everything that's being done to it, but I recognize that a *lot* of people are trying to improve it, add things to it (e.g. majorcool) and that it is going through a rapid evolution whose result is very handy for those of us who run mailing lists. IMHO, it's the best tool available for the job as it stands, and in six months, it'll be *much* better. It's also free. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 09:45:46 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA25625; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA25612 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA14531; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 12:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980616124452.B14411@gsp.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 12:44:52 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Ron's idea References: <19980611202224.A21413@gsp.org> <199806121414.QAA28334@pythagoras> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806121414.QAA28334@pythagoras>; from Norbert Bollow on Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 04:14:48PM +0200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 04:14:48PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Good point. Let's leave the current cooperative model of the internet > unchanged and make plans for a new network. A network which would be > interconnected with the internet and it's workings would be mostly > indistinguishable from how the internet works for the ordinary end user, > but where TCP/IP is replaced by a pair of protocals which implement > Mike Nolan's idea. I am sure this new network will very quickly start > to offer better services than the 'old' internet, and hence become a > great commercial success for the many network infrastructure companies > that will participate in it. Be my guest. If you think you can make it fly, go for it. I think you'll fail, but then again it's not my time or money on the line. Heck, maybe I'm completely wrong and you'll get filthy rich from it. But I think you really ought to look at the stampede *away* from this model which is happening now before you commit yourself to it. > > And that`s > without even getting into the technical details of > > implementing this, a nightmare that I don't even want to think about. > > You don't have to.... some people will be interested in designing and > implementing this; that is going to be a real challenge, yes, but you > see, some people like challenges. So do I. That's why I do whitewater kayak racing. Heck, that's why I got into these weird things called 'Unix', 'Arpanet' and 'Usenet' nearly twenty years ago. But I recognize that there's a difference between "a challenge" and "a doomed attempt to resurrect already-dead ideas". ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 10:11:37 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA25823; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA25816 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA14966; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980616130252.A14896@gsp.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:02:52 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com> <19980613070218.A8638@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Jason L Tibbitts III on Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 03:21:37AM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 03:21:37AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > By who's interpretation of said standard? We have no supreme court to turn > to, you know. You shouldn't try to appoint yourself chief justice. I'm *not* trying to appoint myself chief justice, because I have neither the desire nor the time to do the job. I am simply saying that I'm going to express my opinion on this, and I'm telling you what my opinion is. Some people will probably listen to me. Others won't. My guess is the difference will be in the perceived validity of my arguments and credibility. > But before slamming Eric's product, why not say what you think the RFC > says? Please don't just take my word for it. This thread would be > meaningless if you listened to Roger instead. I'm not so much upset with Eric's product as I am with the attitude displayed. Frankly, this is the kind of we're-too-big-for-standards behavior that we see frequently from Micro$oft, and I think it's totally opposed to the cooperative spirit which built the Internet -- hence my hostility. In other words, I'm far less concerned (for the moment; I'll get back to it) with the technical issue than I am with the arrogance displayed by a company who ought to be leading the way *to* the standard, not outrageously flaunting it. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 10:26:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA26512; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA26495 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.43] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #2) id 0ylzT1-0001j4-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:24:19 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980616182314.0096a890@stingray.ivision.co.uk> X-Sender: manarpop@stingray.ivision.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:23:14 +0100 To: Rich Kulawiec From: Manar Hussain Subject: Re: Big Picture Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <19980616124029.A14411@gsp.org> References: <3.0.32.19980615112433.008459f0@mail.iecc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:40 16/06/98 -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: >On Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 05:35:40PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> But take a look at what's going on around majordomo, and you'll see >> lots of neet tools coming around, because it IS open, available and >> hackable. And if you want to take advantage of that stuff, you probably >> ought to think about going where the action is. > >IMHO, it's the best tool available for the job as it stands, and in six >months, it'll be *much* better. It's also free. I've looked at a lot of list packages and I have to say that majordomo 1.94(.x) in pure end user functionality with no patching/code hacking looses out significantly in certain areas to some of the commercial options available and even with it comes up rather short. That said I am (a) *sure* this is more to do with majordomo than the free software issue and (b) the development of majordomo 2 is looking to prove that by resolving the issue. Free Software has a different dynamic which can make it *much* better than commercial software in many (but not all) cases. It's not just features and evolution - perversely it's also often about support. We use Exim as our mail server on many machine. Apart from the fact that it beats the pants of just about any commercial MTA - you won't believe the degree of support we've got. I've mailed a bug report to the users mailing list and had a source patch within 2 hours on more than one occasion - if I said that about MS exchange you'd be waiting for a punch line. Majordomo 1.x is the very end (probably further than it should have been) of it's last legs but heah - guess what, majordomo 2 is a complete rewrite that I think has the potential to easily match and exceed in many areas the other mailing list solutions. Manar From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 10:41:46 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA26743; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA26730 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id TAA07361; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:29:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id TAA08477; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:28:59 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:28:59 +0200 Message-Id: <199806161728.TAA08477@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:31:38 -0700) Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Mike Nolan wrote: > > I'm not sure there is much evidence supporting this for things outside of > > the Internet: > > > > Most libraries are free, but their use is declining while book sales continue > > to increase. > > > The cost of cards and postage keeps going up, but I still get a wall full > > of Christmas cards every December. (And send a like number.) > Chuq Von Rospach replied: > Which is a great example of how this stuff gets misinterpreted. it's > not cost. it's cost vs. perceived value. It seems to me that you both missed the point which I was trying to make... my point is about _encouraging_ people to _provide_valuable_content_. In a very, very rough approximation let me debide those who really use the internet into three groups: A) Those who use relatively little bandwidth, but profit greatly from the wealth of information available on the net. B) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but also contribute valuable information (in posts to mailing lists, web pages, etc. etc.) C) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but don't contribute to the value of the net as a whole. The current system means that all the many people in group A pay a little more each so that the (relatively few) people in groups B and C are able to use a lot of bandwidth without paying anything close to the real cost of the bandwidth they're using. In view of the people in group B this is only fair, since without their contributions to the internet's content the net would not have much value for the people in group A. We know that this system is open to abuse by spammers and other people of poor morals (those in group C). Mike Nolan's idea is good only if it is possible to do this in a way which still encourages people to provide information to the net as a whole. It seems to me that the only way to achieve this would be to commercialize it completely.... and this means very, very profound changes of how everything works, including significant changes to all user applications which use the network in any way. I've though about this a little more.... it's a much greater technological challenge than I thought it was before, but I'm getting the feeling again that it can be done (and that it will be profitable). HOWEVER, this really should be discussed futher on a dedicated mailing list and not here (where it's really off-topic now). Are there any objections against moving this thread to a dedicated mailing list named RATIONET (because it's discussing a NETwork which will be RATIOnally designed to care for the needs of the users in groups A and B at a reasonably low price while at the same time making the users of group C pay a reasonable price for the bandwidth they're using) which I would set up and host? -- Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland Backup E-mail address: NB@POBOX.COM From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 13:41:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA01037; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA01030 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA17536; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980616163317.A17477@gsp.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:33:17 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea References: <199806161728.TAA08477@pythagoras> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806161728.TAA08477@pythagoras>; from Norbert Bollow on Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 07:28:59PM +0200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 07:28:59PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > A) Those who use relatively little bandwidth, but profit greatly from > the wealth of information available on the net. > > B) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but also contribute valuable > information (in posts to mailing lists, web pages, etc. etc.) > > C) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but don't contribute to the value > of the net as a whole. I would suggest adding to this: B') Those who use relatively little bandwidth but also contribute valuable information ([...]). I live -- mostly -- on the far end of a 28.8 PPP link. I *can't* use a lot of bandwidth even if I want to. ;-) But I maintain half a dozen FAQs, several websites for nonprofit organizations, run mailing lists, hunt spammers, work on software projects, and do a lot of other things (none of which I'm paid to do) that I hope make a meaningful contribution to the 'net community. It's payback. (And it's fun. Mostly.) I think a great many people fall into B', and I think that attempting to meter Internet service by the packet will make it financially impossible for them to make their contributions. Further, I think the people in B' are largely responsible for most of the interesting and useful things that happen on the 'net: very little of enduring consequence comes from the corporate sector by comparison. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 15:41:34 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA03358; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id PAA03351 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21269 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 1998 22:30:58 -0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com> <19980613070218.A8638@gsp.org> <19980616130252.A14896@gsp.org> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: Rich Kulawiec's message of "Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:02:52 -0400" Date: 16 Jun 1998 15:30:58 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec writes: > I'm not so much upset with Eric's product as I am with the attitude > displayed. Frankly, this is the kind of we're-too-big-for-standards > behavior that we see frequently from Micro$oft, and I think it's totally > opposed to the cooperative spirit which built the Internet -- hence my > hostility. There are some who would say that ramming through a "standard" without ever consulting the people most directly affected by it and then expecting them to change to adjust to it is the kind of "embrace and extend" behavior that we see frequently from Micro$oft and that it's totally opposed to the cooperative spirit which built the Internet. Hence *our* hostility. :) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 15:50:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA03398; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA03365 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA43056 ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:33:04 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980616163317.A17477@gsp.org> References: <199806161728.TAA08477@pythagoras>; from Norbert Bollow on Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 07:28:59PM +0200 <199806161728.TAA08477@pythagoras> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:30:31 -0700 To: Rich Kulawiec , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:33 PM -0700 6/16/98, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 07:28:59PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I would suggest adding to this: > > B') Those who use relatively little bandwidth but also contribute valuable > information ([...]). You know, it sounds like we're trying to re-invent the capitalist society, where people who create things get paid by those who consume them.... The internet, fortunately and unfortunately, is more of a pure anarchy, where whatever you pay for it has little relevance to what you put in or take out of it. You pay your ISP, but your ISP doesn't buy the things you actually use, except at a very isolated (and philosophical) level -- hence people's tendency to view all this stuff as "free", and treat is as such... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 15:57:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA03426; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA03417 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21105 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:34:13 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA08979 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:34:11 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806162234.RAA08979@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea (fwd) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:34:10 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 07:28:59PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > A) Those who use relatively little bandwidth, but profit greatly from > > the wealth of information available on the net. > > > > B) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but also contribute valuable > > information (in posts to mailing lists, web pages, etc. etc.) > > > > C) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but don't contribute to the value > > of the net as a whole. > > I would suggest adding to this: > > B') Those who use relatively little bandwidth but also contribute valuable > information ([...]). I think the above classification scheme is incomplete. Though I may not have outlined it in sufficient depth, what I envision is a bidirectional transfer of payments system, with some packets paid for by the sender, others paid for by the receiver, and with some data packets worth more than others, BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING DATA IS WORTH MORE TO THE RECEIVER OF IT. (For those who haven't read it, 'Being Digital' by Nicholas Negroponte brought what had been a rather vague idea in the back of my head into much clearer focus. I HIGHLY recommend the book.) Bandwidth usage is just one component of the economic model I have in mind, especially since bandwidth is also bidirectional. The other aspect has to do with valuation of the data, and the possibility of a transfer of payment (or at least a portion of it) all the way back to the originator of that data. (Think of it as an Internet copyright usage fee if that makes it clearer, though that's somewhat beyond what I had in mind and opens a whole new can of worms. The LAST THING I want is for lawyers to get involved in defining the Internet.) A small website (noncorporate and not advertiser supported) currently exists strictly because of the good will of the provider. If there was an INCOMING payment stream based on hits or some other reasonable measure, it might more than offset the costs of maintaining the site. The same thing is true for mailing lists. For those arguing that my scheme might have slowed down the development of the web as we know it, I would counter that a system whereby popular small websites received income from the folks hitting it might well have sped up the growth of the web, if such a thing is imaginable. I think it would have sped up the rate at which some data repository sites came online, things like newspapers. And for corporate sponsored or advertiser supported websites, wouldn't the corporation or the advertiser be MORE than willing to pay the transaction cost, since in effect they already are. (I don't know that I would go so far as to transfer some of that payment back to the reader, that might encourage a whole new breed of 'bots.) Rich, assume for a moment that this could be structured so that for low volume users like you the costs would be no greater than under the current system, and quite possibly substantially less if your contributions to the Internet exceeds your consumption of it. Does that overcome some of your concerns? As we may be boring some of our list manager brethren (and sistren?) to tears here, I'm willing to move the discussion to another forum if those willing to continue discussing it (even if in the negative) are willing to come along, too. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 17:41:35 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA05938; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA05931 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:36:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA29923 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA23475 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:40:15 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:33:17 -0400. <19980616163317.A17477@gsp.org> X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:40:15 -0700 Message-ID: <23473.898044015@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <19980616163317.A17477@gsp.org>, Rich Kulawiec wrote: >On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 07:28:59PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> A) Those who use relatively little bandwidth, but profit greatly from >> the wealth of information available on the net. >> >> B) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but also contribute valuable >> information (in posts to mailing lists, web pages, etc. etc.) >> >> C) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but don't contribute to the value >> of the net as a whole. > >I would suggest adding to this: > >B') Those who use relatively little bandwidth but also contribute valuable >information ([...]). > >I live -- mostly -- on the far end of a 28.8 PPP link. I *can't* use >a lot of bandwidth even if I want to. ;-) But I maintain half a dozen >FAQs, several websites for nonprofit organizations, run mailing lists, >hunt spammers, work on software projects, and do a lot of other things >(none of which I'm paid to do) that I hope make a meaningful contribution >to the 'net community. It's payback. (And it's fun. Mostly.) Ditto here. >I think a great many people fall into B', and I think that attempting >to meter Internet service by the packet will make it financially >impossible for them to make their contributions. Further, I think I wouldn't be too sure about that. You and I might end up paying _less_ if the whole system went to metered service. It all depends upon how it is priced. That's the bad news. If metered Internet service ended up being like metered telephone service (and there is no reason to thing that it wouldn't in the current regulatory and not-quite-free-market envoronment), then the big corporate fish would get great rates and (as usual) the little people would get screwed. One thing I do know is that I have never been happy with subsidizing the bandwidth of either bulk spammers or of people who are constantly cruzing all of the graphics-rich web pages you see these days. (Don't even get me started about push technology and such things and stock prices and whether forecasts that update on your screen every five seconds whether you are looking at it or not.) But then again, maybe all these folks have actually be subsidizing _me_ all this time, what with the local partial newsfeed I suck daily out of my ISP and the odd occasion where I am sucking down something gargantuan via FTP. Who knows. >the people in B' are largely responsible for most of the interesting >and useful things that happen on the 'net: very little of enduring >consequence comes from the corporate sector by comparison. I don't think that is a completely fair comment. Some commercial sites that I find very useful are: http://www.altavista.digital.com/ http://www.dejanews.com/ http://www.switchboard.com/ http://www.hotmail.com/ (*) ftp.netscape.com ftp.adobe.com (*) Lots of net-sophisticates eschew Hotmail.Com, but I happen to think it's great as a backup. It's nice to know that when & if your own mail server is hosed temporarily, you can still get mail in and out via a backup Hotmail account. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 18:14:29 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA07277; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id SAA07269 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA19693 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16138 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:14:10 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Rich Kulawiec's message of "Sat, 13 Jun 1998 07:02:18 -0400" <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com> <19980613070218.A8638@gsp.org> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:11:31 -0700 To: Jason L Tibbitts III , Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, Eric Thomas Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:21 AM -0700 6/15/98, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > RK> Then L-Soft's software will be considered in violation of Internet > RK> standards, and I will recommend to every list manager, end user, > RK> network adminstrator and everyone else that I come into contact with > RK> that they avoid it or remove it until such time as it complies with > RK> this RFC. > > By who's interpretation of said standard? We have no supreme court to turn > to, you know. You shouldn't try to appoint yourself chief justice. By Rich's. And he has every right to do this. It's effectiveness is only going to be as widespread as his influence on the net is, however. Which is one of the great aspects of the net. We don't NEED central authorities, but then, everyone else can also choose to ignore someone. Its all how well Rich influences the people who listen to him. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 18:26:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA07625; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id SAA07615 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id QAA04521 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 16:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19956 invoked by uid 666); 15 Jun 1998 23:48:27 -0000 Date: 15 Jun 1998 23:48:27 -0000 Message-ID: <19980615234827.19954.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806131620.JAA06934@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I've found that users have a much easier time with list-subscribe and list-unsubscribe than with subject/body commands sent to list-request. Eric Thomas writes: > the IETF's role is to act as some kind of neutral ground or mediator > and develop standards that the industry agrees with or is at least > likely to implement. The industry develops its own standards, and ignores the IETF. Exception: When several companies want to coordinate actions without risking antitrust lawsuits, they communicate through IETF mailing lists. The loss of privacy is a small price to pay for avoiding regulation. ---Dan 50000 new aliases in 6 seconds. http://pobox.com/~djb/fastforward.html From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 18:30:34 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA07651; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id SAA07641 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA09517 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806160339.UAA09517@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <8.BBA80F9B@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 4:43:12 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9444; Tue, 16 Jun 98 05:45:47 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 9622; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 05:45:47 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:12:59 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Big Picture To: Margaret Levine Young , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:35:40 -0700 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:35:40 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach said: >(and it doesn't make lots of sense to write neat hacks to a commercial >server). Chuq, I'll let your other comments slip through without starting a flame war :-), but THAT is a really silly thing to say! I have written tons of neat hacks for a variety of commercial systems ranging from mainframes to PCs, in fact just about every tool I developed was for a commercial system of some kind. LISTSERV itself started off as a neat tool for a proprietary networking and e-mail system where each participating site had to pay IBM big bucks in pre-req licenses before they could install LISTSERV. When your job is to run Oracle or SAP or SNA, you write tools to make your job easier, just like the guy whose job is to run a farm of Linux boxes. You don't punish yourself by trudging along without the tools just because it's a commercial system. Take LWGate for instance, while it does support Majordomo and ListProc it was written primarily and originally for LISTSERV, by students and on Linux. They did it because it solved a problem they were having. Most tools are written for this reason. I'm sure there are a few bigots out there who won't develop for something commercial under any circumstances, but they're seldom hired to run commercial products :-) At L-Soft we run a hobby mailing list service with some 600 lists and over 600,000 daily deliveries. It is entirely administered by our former receptionist, part time ("former" because she was promoted after getting the responsibility officially :-) ). It did not start out this way of course, but she saw an opportunity for doing something more challenging, so she read up on LISTSERV and offered to take over the easier aspects, and eventually she was doing everything other than managing the hardware itself. She explains things to customers before their purchase, takes orders, creates the lists, answers technical questions, makes backups, puts lists on hold when people don't pay, etc. The bulk of the work is on the customer service side, as it should be. People who send checks to the Montana office we don't have, who have a problem with their AOL account, etc. She is smart and knows how to run programs and so on, but she doesn't know how to write them, so I imagine she found what she needed on the net, or maybe talked a junior programmer into writing scripts for her. The point is, I don't even know what she's using (I live in another country), which suggests she was able to find what she needed without trouble, otherwise she would have complained to our internal technical staff list ;-) I don't think you can say that there are automatically more or better tools for Majordomo just because it's open, available and hackable. LISTSERV was free until 1993 (including freely available source code) and I haven't noticed a change in the development of free tools when it went commercial. I just don't think the kind of people who run LISTSERV (and might develop tools) care about such things. Eric From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 18:36:06 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA07452; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id SAA07444 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA23835 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806151612.JAA23835@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <8.D976D19D@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:16:51 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 7271; Mon, 15 Jun 98 18:19:26 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 5121; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 18:19:26 +0200 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:34:06 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:59:52 -0500 (CDT) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Anyone writing e-mail or list software who doesn't know what the IETF is >and what it does is incredibly naive. I was aware that IETF was working >on an RFC dealing with mailing lists, This RFC is not about mailing lists, it is about defining "mailbox names for common roles, services and functions." Things like ABUSE, HOSTMASTER, WEBMASTER and so forth. Only one of the sections is about mailing lists, and then only about the -REQUEST address. Since mailing lists are not mentioned in the abstract, I don't see how you can reasonably claim that mailing list developers should have been aware of this RFC. You have to happen to be interested in philosophical discussions about the naming for the address of the NNTP manager to read this RFC and discover section 6. The reason we are having this discussion is that the WG screwed up. It is not the IETF's goal or desire to have this sort of thing happen! A RFC must represent a "rough consensus" in the community, and this can hardly be the case if the community is totally unaware of the RFC because its abstract mentions only unrelated issues, and the community was never made aware of the RFC through the many existing tools at the WG's disposal. >Lastly, how many complaints have we seen about Microsoft or AOL or >[insert favorite target here] not conforming to this or that >well-established RFC standard? The key here is "well-established." I think RFC822 is a big pile of manure, but it's been around for 16 years and we all have to follow it because it defines the protocols that just about everyone implements. We follow RFC822 not because the IETF says so, but because it is such a widely implemented and well-established industry standard. RFC2142 has at best minority implementation. Most lists work differently, and have worked differently for over 10 years, which in itself constitutes a strong objection to the change. The IETF does not attempt to change existing de facto practice without a VERY GOOD reason, and here the reason is at best tenuous! The problem RFC2142 is trying to solve is that you cannot know whether to send your commands to LISTSERV@, Majordomo@ or ListProc@ if all you know is the name of the list, so you should write to -request instead. Well, all right, but you won't know what command syntax to use unless you know which software is sitting at the -request, so this hardly solves anything. Also, in practice you don't have this problem to begin with. You can't write to -request without knowing the hostname, and typically you would get the hostname either from a message inviting people to subscribe or from a list search engine, in either case you will have subscription instructions. I think the WG were just wondering what other well-known mailboxes they could add to the RFC, and they came up with -REQUEST. I don't think they realized the potential impact of what they were doing. Anyway, LISTSERV introduced the -SERVER mailbox many years ago to address this problem, but it was not implemented in other major list managers because there is simply no demand from the users. RFC2142 #6 is a solution in search of a problem, and it is a bad solution because it breaks the well-established -REQUEST tradition. A good solution would introduce a new mailbox name, such as -SERVER, to avoid alienating existing users. -SERVER would be a particularly good choice because just about every LISTSERV site already supports it, but it could be anything else and L-Soft would probably implement it as long as it were a NEW mailbox and did not break anything. Eric From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 19:11:57 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA11464; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA11438 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA25140; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980616220911.A24971@gsp.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:09:11 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806111555.IAA02967@honor.greatcircle.com> <19980613070218.A8638@gsp.org> <19980616130252.A14896@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Russ Allbery on Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 03:30:58PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 03:30:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > There are some who would say that ramming through a "standard" without > ever consulting the people [...] I haven't -- to date -- seen a shred of evidence that indicates that this was the case here. If the evidence exists, by all means, bring it forth and let's evaluate it: because you're right, it's equally offensive to construct a standard by stealth. (BTW, I certainly hope that nobody expects to have a personal invitation to partcipate in these processes. We all know how they're conducted; we all know where to go to participate; we all know that if we remain willfully ignorant or silent, others will proceed without us.) ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 19:17:42 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA11102; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal.magibox.net (postal.magibox.net [206.26.142.145]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA11022 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [206.28.74.81] (demeter-24.magibox.net [206.28.74.88]) by postal.magibox.net (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id VAA18076; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:03:56 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: bighouse@mail.magibox.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806151612.JAA23835@honor.greatcircle.com> References: Message of Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:59:52 -0500 (CDT) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:11:20 -0500 To: Eric Thomas , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Ken Hooper Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric Thomas wrote: >WEBMASTER and so forth. Only one of the sections is about mailing lists, >and then only about the -REQUEST address. Eric, I have a question. Your reason for outright refusing to implement this standard (if we assume the RFC dictates that the MLM sw reside at the -request address) is that it would rob a Listserv list of its "human contact" address, is that not correct? But if I remember right, Listserv also uses listname-owner as a human contact address (which is very sensible because -owner implies a human whereas -request does not unless you are an ARPANET fossil). Let's just grant that whoever wrote that RFC were a bunch of knuckleheads. Regardless, do you require two addresses that point to humans? At least, is it not simple to make it configurable, such that -request can point either to a human or the MLM at the administrator's discretion? Just curious. --Ken type2.com webmaster "He was too lazy to fix it, but not too lazy to bitch." --Steve Dolan From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 19:41:37 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA13535; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:31:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA13524 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA25421; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:36:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980616223630.B24971@gsp.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:36:30 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806151612.JAA23835@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806151612.JAA23835@honor.greatcircle.com>; from Eric Thomas on Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 05:34:06PM +0200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 05:34:06PM +0200, Eric Thomas wrote: > I don't see how you can reasonably claim that > mailing list developers should have been aware of this RFC. Hmmm. Given that you make software for the Internet, don't you have someone read ALL the draft RFC's? If not, why not? (I knew about it and I don't currently have any involvement with mailing list software. In fact, I think it would be kind of hard to overlook it. It does have a rather eye-catching title, IMHO.) > RFC2142 has at best minority implementation. Most lists work differently, > and have worked differently for over 10 years, which in itself > constitutes a strong objection to the change. The -request convention has been around since the Arpanet. I remember seeing it back in 1979. Where were you? > to change existing de facto practice without a VERY GOOD reason, and here > the reason is at best tenuous! It IS the existing de facto practice. > Well, all right, but you won't know > what command syntax to use unless you know which software is sitting at > the -request, so this hardly solves anything. Wrong. The single command help returns meaningful information from all of them. And most of the packages recognize incorrectly formed requests at least well enough to return messages which suggest the correct format. > You can't write to -request without > knowing the hostname, and typically you would get the hostname either > from a message inviting people to subscribe or from a list search engine, > in either case you will have subscription instructions. Also wrong. I see hundreds of subscriptions from people who have found messages (either singlely or in archives) from various mailing lists and who have correctly intuited the subscription address from the "To:" header found on individual messages. They have no subscription information per se; but they have figured out the convention and they've tried it to see if it works. > introduced the -SERVER mailbox many years ago to address this problem, > but it was not implemented in other major list managers because there is > simply no demand from the users. No, it was not implemented because they already were honoring the long-standing -request convention -- which predates *all* of the software packages you mention -- and they saw no reason to go along with your attempt to get the world to use your non-standard approach. Look, if you want to go through the formal process of modifying RFC 2142 -- then fine. There exist processes that you can participate in -- and even drive, to a certain extent -- for just that purpose. And I would encourage you to become involved in them, if you are not already. That's a legitimate way for you to persuade others to make changes -- by force of argument. By debate and vote. But otherwise, face the fact that you were caught napping by the codification of a de facto standard that predates your efforts by at least a decade, and deal with it gracefully by fixing your software. To do otherwise is to thumb your nose at a community's legitimate attempt to govern itself, and to declare yourself above that process. It will be noted as such, and I daresay you'll be held accountable for it. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Tue Jun 16 23:13:11 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA17873; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA17857 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id IAA11927; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 08:06:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id IAA08925; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 08:06:49 +0200 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 08:06:49 +0200 Message-Id: <199806170606.IAA08925@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <23473.898044015@monkeys.com> (rfg@monkeys.com) Subject: Re: A really good point against Mike Nolan's idea Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote: > >I would suggest adding to this: > > > >B') Those who use relatively little bandwidth but also contribute valuable > >information ([...]). Sounds good... will do. With the concept that Mike Nolan is proposing (which I'm going to call RATIONET from now on) these people will get their network access for free, and their RSP (rationet service provider) will consider them to be extremely valuable customers, and will do everything they can to make sure they don't change providers. > >I live -- mostly -- on the far end of a 28.8 PPP link. I *can't* use > >a lot of bandwidth even if I want to. ;-) But I maintain half a dozen > >FAQs, several websites for nonprofit organizations, run mailing lists, > >hunt spammers, work on software projects, and do a lot of other things > >(none of which I'm paid to do) that I hope make a meaningful contribution > >to the 'net community. It's payback. (And it's fun. Mostly.) > >I think a great many people fall into B', and I think that attempting > >to meter Internet service by the packet will make it financially > >impossible for them to make their contributions. Further, I think Ronald F. Guilmette wrote in reply: > I wouldn't be too sure about that. You and I might end up paying _less_ > if the whole system went to metered service. It all depends upon how it > is priced. That's the bad news. If metered Internet service ended up > being like metered telephone service (and there is no reason to thing > that it wouldn't in the current regulatory and not-quite-free-market > envoronment), then the big corporate fish would get great rates and (as > usual) the little people would get screwed. YES... and whether it can work like a free market or not will depend a lot on how it'll be implemented, in particular (at least during the early stages) it will be essential that it will always be possible to route RATIONET packages over the already existing internet. My main motivation for discussing this idea is that I belive that this new network must be designed extremely carefully to avoid possibilities of abuse by monopolists on one side and by bandwidth thieves on the other side. -- NB. -- Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland Backup E-mail address: NB@POBOX.COM From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 17 00:12:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA19892; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA19871 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id JAA12830; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:04:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id JAA09071; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:04:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:04:19 +0200 Message-Id: <199806170704.JAA09071@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <199806162234.RAA08979@celery.tssi.com> (message from Mike Nolan on Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:34:10 -0500 (CDT)) Subject: More on RATIONET (aka "Mike Nolan's idea") Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Mike Nolan wrote: > I think the above classification scheme is incomplete. Though I may not have > outlined it in sufficient depth, what I envision is a bidirectional transfer > of payments system, with some packets paid for by the sender, others paid > for by the receiver, and with some data packets worth more than others, > BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING DATA IS WORTH MORE TO THE RECEIVER OF IT. Yes. And this is how your idea is radically different from the metered networks which are within easy reach of currently-available technology. One way in which my current ideas differ from what you've been proposing is that I think we should _not_ have a central transfer-of-payments agency like you proposed. I think I have some better ideas concerning this, which I will bring up on the RATIONET mailing list as soon as it's up and running (list-managers really isn't the place for such discussions). > (For those who haven't read it, 'Being Digital' by Nicholas Negroponte > brought what had been a rather vague idea in the back of my head into much > clearer focus. I HIGHLY recommend the book.) Thanks for the pointer; I'll try to read it soon. BTW, for others who might be interested, publisher information is London : Coronet Books, 1996 and ISBN number is 0-340-64930-5 > was an INCOMING payment stream based on hits or some other reasonable > measure, it might more than offset the costs of maintaining the site. > The same thing is true for mailing lists. In fact, there will be several kind of mailing lists... * Most will be continue to be offered as a free service, but with a difference: Under the new concept, subscribers will pay for the cost of transmitting their subscription request to the mailing list server, and they will also pay for the cost of transmitting their contributions to the mailing list server, and they will pay for the cost of receiving the messages of the list. This will not be expensive for each subscriber (after all, the real economic cost of transmitting e-mail will be close to zero for most networks when it can be done in bandwidth which is otherwise idle), but it will mean that if you have a very popular mailing list site which needs a dedicated T1, the cost of the T1 will be shared fairly among the subscribers. * Some other mailing lists will not be a free service but (in addition to making the subscribers pay for network costs) impose a per-message fee on the subscribers which means they're actually paying for the service offered by the mailist list site. * Companies which are profiting from the fact that people subscribe to their lists have the option of choosing to pay for all e-mail traffic (related to the lists), both to and from their site. -- NB. -- Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland Backup E-mail address: NB@POBOX.COM From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 17 11:11:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA05088; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA05081 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806171802.LAA05081@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <11.79E09199@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:06:20 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 3916; Wed, 17 Jun 98 20:08:56 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 9004; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:08:55 +0200 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:03:51 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Ken Hooper In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:11:20 -0500 from Ken Hooper Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:11:20 -0500 Ken Hooper said: >Eric, I have a question. Your reason for outright refusing to implement >this standard (if we assume the RFC dictates that the MLM sw reside at >the -request address) is that it would rob a Listserv list of its "human >contact" address, is that not correct? Yes, and the fact that the -request address has traditionally always led to a human, or at least to instructions about contacting a human. >But if I remember right, Listserv also uses listname-owner as a human >contact address It's owner-listname, and it's the address used for bounces! Anything sent to that address has limited chances of survival, depending on how the list is configured. Nowadays many people set their lists for fully automated bounce processing, and they would never see anything sent to that address. >At least, is it not simple to make it configurable, such that -request >can point either to a human or the MLM at the administrator's >discretion? The administrator is free to define the -request as: xxx-request: listserv instead of the recommended setting, but this is not the point. To comply with the RFC, this would have to be the default action. I do agree that -request is a very bad choice, but I was not involved in choosing it. It was already a de facto standard when I wrote LISTSERV, and I just had to implement it even though I had not been able to give my opinion, because it was well-established. Eric From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 17 12:56:51 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA06774; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA06767 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.B72A2688@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:48:16 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4141; Wed, 17 Jun 98 21:50:50 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 9518; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:50:50 +0200 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:36:23 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Rich Kulawiec In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:36:30 -0400 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:36:30 -0400 Rich Kulawiec said: >Hmmm. Given that you make software for the Internet, don't you have >someone read ALL the draft RFC's? If not, why not? For the same reason that we don't have someone reading ALL the Microsoft technical articles about Windows NT, ALL the Sun technical articles about Solaris, and so on. Which incidentally are a LOT more relevant on the average than draft RFCs. Mailing lists are not standardized by the IETF and will probably never be, and as for the MIME and SMTP RFCs, we follow them of course, just as we follow selected NT issues and are a field test site for many operating systems, which doesn't mean we read articles about COBOL compilers or SNA. >The -request convention has been around since the Arpanet. I remember >seeing it back in 1979. Yes, and it pointed to a human person. LISTSERV supports the -request address as (by default) an auto-responder with forward of the original message to the list owner. >most of the packages recognize incorrectly formed requests at least well >enough to return messages which suggest the correct format. >From these comments it is obvious that you are not qualified to discuss ease of use issues. >No, it was not implemented because they already were honoring the >long-standing -request convention -- which predates *all* of the >software packages you mention -- and they saw no reason to go along with >your attempt to get the world to use your non-standard approach. LISTSERV honours the long-standing -request convention, and didn't wait for either you or RFC2142 to do this. However this convention, which indeed predates mailing list managers, is that the -request address points to a human, or at least an auto-response explaining how to contact a human. This should be self-evident considering that the convention predates mailing list managers. The -server convention is guaranteed to go to a computer program and not bother a human, which is the whole point. It is in addition to, not as a replacement for, -request. >But otherwise, face the fact that you were caught napping by the >codification of a de facto standard that predates your efforts LISTSERV is in full compliance with the de facto standard. RFC2142 attempts to redefine this standard to be a totally different thing. This is why we will not implement it. >To do otherwise is to thumb your nose at a community's legitimate >attempt to govern itself, and to declare yourself above that process. It >will be noted as such, and I daresay you'll be held accountable for it. Rich, for your information, the mailing list community does not have the beginning of a clue about what the IETF is or how it works. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere and I have work to do. Eric From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 17 21:56:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA16265; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA16258 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA09869; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980618005426.A9805@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:54:26 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com>; from Eric Thomas on Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 08:36:23PM +0200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 08:36:23PM +0200, Eric Thomas wrote: > >Hmmm. Given that you make software for the Internet, don't you have > >someone read ALL the draft RFC's? If not, why not? > > For the same reason that we don't have someone reading ALL the Microsoft > technical articles about Windows NT, ALL the Sun technical articles about > Solaris, and so on. Which incidentally are a LOT more relevant on the > average than draft RFCs. Mailing lists are not standardized by the IETF > and will probably never be, and as for the MIME and SMTP RFCs, we follow > them of course, just as we follow selected NT issues and are a field test > site for many operating systems, which doesn't mean we read articles > about COBOL compilers or SNA. Don't be ridiculous; nobody asked you if you read articles about COBOL compilers or SNA. You were asked why you don't have someone read all the draft RFC's. I don't see an answer to that question in the above paragraph. > >The -request convention has been around since the Arpanet. I remember > >seeing it back in 1979. > > Yes, and it pointed to a human person. Back then, yes. But it's clearly been understood for well over a decade that one can expect to find an agent of *some* kind -- either human or software -- at that address, which is capable of processing requests. Further, it's been clearly understood that IF an automated agent was present, that was where it could be found. > >From these comments it is obvious that you are not qualified to discuss > ease of use issues. I don't recall submitting my resume to you for your consideration. (Rest assured, it's unlikely that I will in the future. If your company has one.) Now would you like to discuss the issue on the merits, or would like to work out from where you are and contend that I'm too tall to discuss ease of use issues? > >But otherwise, face the fact that you were caught napping by the > >codification of a de facto standard that predates your efforts > > LISTSERV is in full compliance with the de facto standard. RFC2142 > attempts to redefine this standard to be a totally different thing. This > is why we will not implement it. LISTSERV is in non-compliance with the de facto standard -- mostly because it's *not* what you claim it to be -- and with RFC2142. Frankly, I'm astonished. This is a pretty amazing case of denial, which wouldn't really bother me -- hey, you want to ship broken software, go for it -- except that it has repercussions for everyone else on the 'net who *is* in compliance with the de facto standard and who will make good faith efforts to comply with RFC 2142. Maybe you think you're enough of a heavyweight in the marketplace to get away with flaunting it -- and maybe you are. But I hope you aren't. And I'll certainly do my small part to try to make that a reality. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 17 23:17:16 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA17480; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA17472 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:02:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duh.org (like.duh.org [207.30.95.211]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA29945 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 12:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duh.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA03480Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:55:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Vierling X-Sender: tv@like.duh.org To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: : > When Chuq says it wasn't : > designed without feedback from the key players, what key players does he : > have in mind here? : : To my knowledge, the ListServ folks had never heard of the RFC. Neither : have the majordomo people. I don't know about the ListProc people (but : I don't care, either... grin). But between ListServ and Majordomo, : that's probably about 90-95% of the extant mail servers out there. And LISTSERV has, as the Lsoft rep who chimed in noted, been delivering mailing lists for over 15 years - dating back to the glory days of BITNET. Majordomo doesn't even go half as far. LISTSERV implements a human at -request, and Majordomo a machine. Talk about botched RFCs, especially trying to standardize something already so contrasting in practice.... What do I do? I implement a MLM at -request, which is supposedly what the RFC says. Not because I want to, but because the software (petidomo) is hardwired that way. I'm writing my own list manager now because I've yet to see someone Do It Right, for free, in a language other than the high-overhead perl. -- -- Todd Vierling (Personal tv@pobox.com; Bus. todd_vierling@xn.xerox.com) From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 17 23:21:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA17426; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA17417 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA28198 ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:07:04 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980618005426.A9805@gsp.org> References: <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com>; from Eric Thomas on Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 08:36:23PM +0200 <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:40:41 -0700 To: Rich Kulawiec , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:54 PM -0700 6/17/98, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > Don't be ridiculous; nobody asked you if you read articles about > COBOL compilers or SNA. You were asked why you don't have someone > read all the draft RFC's. I don't see an answer to that question > in the above paragraph. Rich, you're being stubborn. The answer is in there: the RFC's are just as relevant to Eric as Cobol and SNA. He has other priorities. As do most of us. Looking out at everything in case any of it might impact us is a no-win, infinite timesink situation. that's one reason why I watch lists like this instead, because they make useful heads-up. NONE of us have time to keep track of everything. and I, for one, consider RFCs a low priority, for the simple reason that any RFC that's going to impact me should come up on one of the resources I do monitor. If I don't, then the group MAKING the RFC is hiding so well that not only can't I find out about it, but none of the other people I interact with did, either. And if they're hiding that well, I don't particularly feel I need to pay attention to them. > Frankly, I'm astonished. This is a pretty amazing case of denial, > which wouldn't really bother me -- It is, Rich, but you're the one denying reality, not Eric. you're so fixed on how you think things should be you won't allow anyone to not match it. And many of us don't, and won't. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 17 23:26:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA17439; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA17431 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA24121 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806161419.HAA24121@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.2F27FC5C@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:23:31 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 0101; Tue, 16 Jun 98 16:26:06 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 0977; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:26:06 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:01:07 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Big Picture To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 15 Jun 1998 21:16:54 -0700 from Chuq Von Rospach Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 21:16:54 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach said: >How widely available are these things? Is there a web site? and/or mail >lists to discuss it? There is some stuff on our FTP server, others want to have their tools on their own site so they can update them at will, yet others send them to you on request (typically you search the archives of LSTSRV-L or post), because they figure that if they put it up for anonymous FTP, they will be expected to spend at least 1h/week enhancing them for OTHERS :-) Likewise we are reluctant to put anything on our site when we know the author graduated/left and people will come to us for support no matter how many times we say AS IS on the FTP banner. THAT is a case where a commercial product has a disadvantage, no matter how many disclaimers are shown, anything on the vendor's site is expected to work, be reasonably bug-free and be fixed if it breaks. This makes it more difficult for the vendor to assemble a collection of tools. IBM had hundreds of top-quality internal tools that it took over 15 years of lobbying for them to release, because they were worried that people would use them and depend on them, and then blame IBM if they broke and millions were lost. There used to be a "black-market" operation, people who worked for IBM temporarily would "bring a tape home" and give their friends a copy. IBM didn't mind at all (otherwise people wouldn't have done it, nobody wants to be sued by IBM!) Since it was illegal they weren't about to be sued by their customers, which was their only concern. Likewise people knew better than to depend on an illegal copy of an IBM tool for anything but personal use. Eventually, they agreed to release selected tools on limited terms. It was also possible to get them officially if you were a big enough customer and signed enough disclaimers (and they would give you the source code). Obviously the Linux team does not have this problem :-) Eric From list-managers-owner Wed Jun 17 23:26:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA17454; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA17444 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from transport.mail-list.com (transport.mail-list.com [206.109.113.140]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA24088 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([206.109.113.133]) [206.109.113.133] by transport.mail-list.com with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #2) id 0ylwEs-0000YE-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:57:30 +0000 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:15:37 +0100 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com From: mark david mcCreary Subject: Re: integrated delivery system Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At the risk of offering additional opinions, without having read all the previous messages, I will mention that I like the following email commands for consumers to operate lists with. While a web interface is a nice option, a mailing list is always going to need to be operated with email messages at a minimum. list-request address handles the subscribe/unsubscribe commands, and sends back a help message with complete instructions when it is confused. list-on Accepts messages and reformats the message into the standard subscribe message for a Smartlist list. Ignores the subject line and body of the incoming message. Sends the formatted message to the standard list-request address. list-off Accepts messages and reformats the message into the standard unsubscribe message for a Smartlist list. Ignores the subject line and body of the incoming message. Sends the formatted message to the standard list-request address. list-change Allows existing subscribers to change their email address by sending in one command. The requestor needs to put the opposite address in the Subject line. That is, if the requestor is sending from their new address, they put their old address in the Subject line. If the requestor is sending from their existing address, their new address goes into the Subject line. This script checks the dist file, and formats the appropriate messages to subscribe and unsubscribe the addresses. list-switch Allows existing subscribers to switch between list and list-d, and back again. The subject line and body of the message are ignored. This script checks the dist file, and formats the appropriate messages to subscribe and unsubscribe the addresses. list-vacation Allows existing subscribers to toggle between the vacation and distribution list. While on the vacation list, the subscriber will not receive any messages posted to the list. list-help Returns the help message for the list. list-html Allows existing subscribers to designate that they want email messages delivered in HTML format. list-text Allows existing subscribers to designate that they want email messages in a plain text format. Where list is replaced by the name of the list (i.e. list-managers in this case). I have produced a procmail package, with the help of many talented programmers on the Procmail list, that implements the above commands, as a front-end to a mailing list. This package accepts the incoming email message, reformats it into commands understandable by the MLM, and re-mails it. It is designed for Smartlist lists, although I expect it could be tweaked for other types of MLM's. This package is available for free, under the GNU license, at ftp.mail-list.com mark From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 01:41:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA24552; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 01:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id BAA24545 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 01:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.43] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #2) id 0ymaHI-0004pT-00; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:42:40 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980618094135.00918cc0@stingray.ivision.co.uk> X-Sender: manarpop@stingray.ivision.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:41:35 +0100 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com From: Manar Hussain Subject: Re: integrated delivery system In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't think I'd go with some options being managed by a single alias that toggles (list-switch, list-vacation) and others with two separate aliases (list-html, list-text). I'd probably go with two aliases for each but failing that a single for each - but not a mixture. Manar From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 03:11:31 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id DAA26776; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 03:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA26757 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 03:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pythagoras (bollow@pythagoras [129.132.146.161]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id MAA01209; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:09:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (bollow@localhost) by pythagoras (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id MAA12321; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:09:42 +0200 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:09:42 +0200 Message-Id: <199806181009.MAA12321@pythagoras> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <199806162234.RAA08979@celery.tssi.com> (message from Mike Nolan on Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:34:10 -0500 (CDT)) Subject: Mailing lists for RATIONET proposal (aka "Mike Nolan's idea") Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Mike Nolan wrote: > As we may be boring some of our list manager brethren (and sistren?) to > tears here, I'm willing to move the discussion to another forum if those > willing to continue discussing it (even if in the negative) are willing to > come along, too. I have set up the following mailing lists, which are now available via Majordomo@thinkcoach.com RATIONET General discussion of the RATIONET proposal RATIONET-announce Important announcements RATIONET-protocols More technical discussions, like designing protocols and such. Anyone who is interested in these ideas is requested to please come over and help getting these ideas straighted out. Those who are sceptical of the idea (or even opposed of it) are especially welcome, since it'll be healthy if at least someone will be trying to talk some sense into us :) -- NB. P.S. For the benifit of anyone who may have joined this list quite recently, the proposal is to design a new network based on replacing TCP/IP with a different protocol suite, which will be rationally designed to support volunteer efforts as well as rationable net commerce, but not spammers and other bandwidth thieves. From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 05:26:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA00137; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 05:15:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA00128 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 05:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id IAA12678; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980618082025.A12614@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:20:25 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com>; <199806171943.MAA06767@honor.greatcircle.com> <19980618005426.A9805@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Chuq Von Rospach on Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 10:40:41PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 10:40:41PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Rich, you're being stubborn. Yes, I *am* being stubborn. > The answer is in there: the RFC's are just as relevant to Eric as Cobol > and SNA. He has other priorities. As do most of us. As do I. But I find the time to at least keep an ear to the ground so that I'm aware of them -- and I take the time to read, at least once, the ones that might have an impact on what I'm doing. I do so because I think that's my responsibility as someone who connects systems/software/networks to the 'net: part of my job is not only satisfying somebody's requirements, but doing so in a way that cooperates with the rest of the 'net community -- and doing requires that I adhere with the standards that community sets for itself to the best of my ability. I don't always succeed; like everyone, I make mistakes. But I think there's a pretty wide gap between honest mistakes and purposeful defiance. And I don't find Eric's attempt to equate RFCs with COBOL documentation in the least bit persuasive. > And if they're hiding that well, I don't particularly feel I > need to pay attention to them. Granted. But nobody, including Eric, has yet produced any evidence that this done in an under-the-table manner. As I said in another message, if that were the case, then I'd have a problem with the process, too; but until then... > you're so fixed on how you think things should be you won't allow > anyone to not match it. And many of us don't, and won't. Actually, that's not quite true. The way *I* "think things should be" is different from BOTH de facto practice AND the RFC. But I have't expressed it here because, while it might make for an interesting discussion, it really doesn't matter what I think about it. I feel it's my responsibility, as a cooperative member of the 'net, to go along with the de facto convention - especially because NOT going along causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. My sense of obligation to that goes up a notch when I see that convention written into an RFC. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 06:56:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA01532; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 06:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA01522 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id JAA13871; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980618095501.A13848@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:55:01 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: integrated delivery system References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: ; from mark david mcCreary on Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 09:15:37AM +0100 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 09:15:37AM +0100, mark david mcCreary wrote: > While a web interface is a nice option, a mailing list is always going > to need to be operated with email messages at a minimum. I strongly agree. This is especially true in the case of handicapped users whose tools (mostly) tend to work with text-only interfaces. > list-request [...] > list-on [...] > list-off [...] > list-change [...] > list-switch [...] > list-vacation [...] > list-help [...] > list-html [...] > list-text [...] Hmmm. That's 9 addresses per mailing list, which is going to mean a heck of a lot of aliases for sites that operate hundreds of mailing lists. I see what you're trying to do: put the directive into the name of of the address. But the end-user still has to know the directive name (e.g. "vacation") in order to accomplish the task. I'm not sure I see why this is a win over a single address for list administration to which directives are sent. Especially since, if they forget or mistype a directive (e.g. "modify" instead of "change"), their mail will bounce -- as opposed to what will happen if it reaches a MLM sitting at a single address, which will at least respond and tell them that it doesn't understand. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 07:26:43 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA02056; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA02048 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.43] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #2) id 0ymfUK-0000Qs-00; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:16:28 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980618151522.0089b690@stingray.ivision.co.uk> X-Sender: manarpop@stingray.ivision.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:15:22 +0100 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Manar Hussain Subject: Re: integrated delivery system In-Reply-To: <19980618095501.A13848@gsp.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Hmmm. That's 9 addresses per mailing list, which is going to mean >a heck of a lot of aliases for sites that operate hundreds of mailing lists. >I see what you're trying to do: put the directive into the name of >of the address. But the end-user still has to know the directive name >(e.g. "vacation") in order to accomplish the task. Personally I'd go with restricting this to -on/-off and -request Manar From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 07:56:53 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA02830; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA02796 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1505 invoked by uid 666); 18 Jun 1998 14:46:33 -0000 Date: 18 Jun 1998 14:46:32 -0000 Message-ID: <19980618144632.1503.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: integrated delivery system References: <19980618095501.A13848@gsp.org> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec writes: > a heck of a lot of aliases for sites that operate hundreds of mailing lists. Depends on your MTA. With qmail, a single .qmail-list-default will catch all the addresses. The MLM can find the command in $DEFAULT. This capability is a prerequisite for more powerful features such as VERPs. See http://pobox.com/~djb/proto/verp.txt. > I'm not sure I see why this is a win over a single address for > list administration to which directives are sent. ``Empty message to sos-subscribe@heaven.af.mil'' is simpler than ``message to sos-request@heaven.af.mil with SUBSCRIBE in the Subject.'' It's easier to do by hand, easier to automate, and easier to parse. Everyone understands that addresses have to be copied exactly. ---Dan 50000 new aliases in 6 seconds. http://pobox.com/~djb/fastforward.html From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 08:11:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA02946; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA02939 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA14589 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:53:00 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA06775 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:52:58 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806181452.JAA06775@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:52:58 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Todd Vierling wrote: > And LISTSERV has, as the Lsoft rep who chimed in noted, been delivering > mailing lists for over 15 years - dating back to the glory days of BITNET. > Majordomo doesn't even go half as far. LISTSERV implements a human at > -request, and Majordomo a machine. Talk about botched RFCs, especially > trying to standardize something already so contrasting in practice.... Um, isn't one REASON for a standard to try to select from among a number of conflicting but prevalent practices one which is 'preferred'? That some folks on this list don't care for the choice 'they' made sounds just a bit like sour grapes here, especially given the strident tone on this thread recently . (IMHO, when a thread resorts to calling each other names, it is generally to the point where little further intelligent discussion will occur unless an outbreak of common sense occurs or the LIst Manager takes action. It periodically amuses me that even seasoned list managers revert to that level of behavior from time to time, it must be something inherent in the species. And, yes, I've done it on this list, too.) Regarding the plethora of list-'function' addresses being discussed here, I have really mixed emotions about that as well, though for my piddling 9 lists I could certainly maintain the aliases file by hand. Could not, however, a site automate a bunch of these functions into the local delivery agent, rather than hard-code them into the aliases file? Example: 'list'-on is a meta-address that routes the message to the 'on' function for 'list'. This presumes a consistent directory naming convention at the site, however, or perhaps a table-lookup function. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 09:13:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA04835; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA04815 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806181558.IAA04815@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.634DC51F@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:02:49 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 7202; Thu, 18 Jun 98 18:05:25 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 6100; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:05:25 +0200 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:44:22 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Rich Kulawiec In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:54:26 -0400 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:54:26 -0400 Rich Kulawiec said: >But it's clearly been understood for well over a decade that one can >expect to find an agent of *some* kind -- either human or software -- at >that address, No, it's not clearly been understood for well over a decade at all. For one thing, over a decade ago there was exactly one mailing list manager available, LISTSERV, and it did not sit at -request. Your Honour, I'm afraid the first use of -request for the command address dates back to somewhere around 93. >LISTSERV is in non-compliance with the de facto standard -- mostly >because it's *not* what you claim it to be You claim to know the de facto standard better than I do, but you didn't even know that 10 years ago LISTSERV was the only game in town. The default setting for both Majordomo and LISTSERV is that the command processor does not sit at -request (same with ListProc if I recall correctly, at least the free version). Since these products probably account for over 90% of mailing lists, I don't see how the de facto standard could be the opposite, but hey, who am I to argue with a Supreme Court judge? >But I hope you aren't. And I'll certainly do my small part to try to >make that a reality. As far as I know, you've been advising people to use Majordomo rather than LISTSERV from way before RFC2142. Either way, you are welcome to further discredit the IETF process if you think this will benefit the community. Eric From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 10:07:00 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA06595; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA06588 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jailbait@localhost) by apocalypse.org (8.8.7/8.8.5) id MAA06620; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:51:25 -0400 Message-ID: <19980618125125.A6072@apocalypse.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:51:25 -0400 From: Jailbait To: Eric Thomas , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806181558.IAA04815@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <199806181558.IAA04815@honor.greatcircle.com>; from Eric Thomas on Jun 18, 1998 at 05:44:22PM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Quoting Eric Thomas (ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM): > On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:54:26 -0400 Rich Kulawiec said: > > >But it's clearly been understood for well over a decade that one can > >expect to find an agent of *some* kind -- either human or software -- at > >that address, > > No, it's not clearly been understood for well over a decade at all. For > one thing, over a decade ago there was exactly one mailing list manager > available, LISTSERV, and it did not sit at -request. Your Honour, I'm > afraid the first use of -request for the command address dates back to > somewhere around 93. > Unless you're talking about the context of MLM's ONLY, which is not how it seems from what you've said above, then my anecdote trumps yours. I'm the manager of a list that has been around since '85, has always used the -request convention, and grew out of machines hosted on .arpa machines that ALSO used the -request convention. Ignoring the worth (or not) of 2412?, JB From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 10:12:10 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA07063; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA07055 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA16329; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 13:02:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980618130234.A16223@gsp.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 13:02:34 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner References: <199806181603.MAA15192@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806181603.MAA15192@gsp.org>; from Eric Thomas on Thu, Jun 18, 1998 at 05:44:22PM +0200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 18, 1998 at 05:44:22PM +0200, Eric Thomas wrote: > You claim to know the de facto standard better than I do, but you didn't > even know that 10 years ago LISTSERV was the only game in town. I "don't know it" because it's not true. MLM software has existed in various forms for a lot of years -- long before y'all came along. Oh, sure, a lot of it was homebrewed and a lot of it disappeared, and a lot of it *needed* to disappear, but the experiments have been going on for a long time. > Since these products probably account for over 90% of mailing lists Do they? That's a straightforward question. I have not seen this figure cited before, here or elsewhere. Where did it come from? How was it arrived at? Is it accurate? My *subjective* impression, based on continuous monitoring of the "new-list" mailing list, where new mailing lists are announced, for the past four years, is that more and more new mailing lists are using web-based subscription procedures whose backends are either disguised versions of well-known MLMs, or new ones, or custom code. Whether that still leaves 90% of them under one of the well-known MLMs or not, I don't know. But I'd like see a rigorous explanation of where that number came from. > but hey, who am I to argue with a Supreme Court judge? I've never claimed to be such. Please stick to the facts. > As far as I know, you've been advising people to use Majordomo rather > than LISTSERV from way before RFC2142. That is correct. I prefer solutions architected by and for the Internet community in mutual cooperation. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 12:11:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA11332; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 11:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.intelenet.net (intelenet.net [204.182.160.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA11322 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 11:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boris.intelenet.net (bob@boris.intelenet.net [207.38.65.11]) by ns.intelenet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA00511 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bob@localhost) by boris.intelenet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA08262 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806181901.MAA08262@boris.intelenet.net> From: bob@intelenet.net (Bob Myers) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:01:37 -0700 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: RFC 2142 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ok, so I don't understand what all the fuss over RFC 2142 is about. This is what it says: ---------------------------------------------- 6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop requests and other meta-queries can be sent. For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is: there MUST be the administrative mailbox name: Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo and Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with the software on that system -- usually the name of the software -- rather than a particular list on that system. Use of such mailbox names requires participants to know the type of list software employed at the site. This is problematic. Consequently: LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED, INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE MAILBOX NAMES. ---------------------------------------------- There is *no* statement here that the -request address must be an automated MLM! All it says is that there must be a -request administrative address "to which add/drop requests and other meta-queries can be sent." It seems to me that Listserv's behavior of having a human contact at the -request address is entirely consistent with this RFC. It might be *preferable* that this be the MLM, but I see nothing in this text that disallows using the human contact address, especially with an autoresponder. So I, for one, see no problem here. My reading is that Listserv's behavior is allowed by RFC 2142. -- Bob Myers InteleNet Communications, Inc. Email: bob@InteleNet.net 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 550 Phone: 714-851-8250 x227 Irvine, CA 92612 Fax: 714-851-1088 http://www.intelenet.net/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 17:11:49 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA17065; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:59:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA17058 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [208.145.52.97] (adamb.tezcat.com [208.145.52.97]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id TAA00216 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 19:03:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199806190003.TAA00216@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: integrated delivery system Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 19:03:56 -0500 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 6/18/98 9:46 AM, D. J. Bernstein wrote... >Everyone understands that addresses have to be copied exactly. If they *copy* them, perhaps. But some people just try to guess at what they see/saw, making assumptions along the way. I can't even count the number of times this month I've corrected people who spelled "LISTSERV" as "LISTSERVE," and couldn't understand why their mail was being bounced. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 17:41:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA17641; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from siren.shore.net (siren.shore.net [207.244.124.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id RAA17634 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smoe.org [204.167.97.154] by siren.shore.net with esmtp (Exim) id 0ymp5Z-0007Ii-00; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:31:33 -0400 Received: (from jeffw@localhost) by smoe.org (8.8.7/8.8.7/daemon-mode-relay2) id UAA22411; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980618203131.P16886@smoe.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:31:31 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: integrated delivery system Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <199806190003.TAA00216@quilla.tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199806190003.TAA00216@quilla.tezcat.com>; from "Adam Bailey" on Thu, Jun 18, 1998 at 07:03:56PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 18, 1998 at 07:03:56PM -0500, Adam Bailey wrote: > On 6/18/98 9:46 AM, D. J. Bernstein wrote... > > >Everyone understands that addresses have to be copied exactly. > > If they *copy* them, perhaps. But some people just try to guess at what > they see/saw, making assumptions along the way. I can't even count the > number of times this month I've corrected people who spelled "LISTSERV" > as "LISTSERVE," and couldn't understand why their mail was being bounced. Yup. I use majordomo, and I have an administrative account called 'majordom' that majordomo runs as. I probably get 2 or 3 people a week sending requests to majordom rather than majordomo. List management software that either use listname-COMMAND addresses or (worse) accept administrative commands at the posting address do nothing but confuse the masses (IMHO). -Jeff From list-managers-owner Thu Jun 18 18:11:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA18308; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA18301 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806190107.SAA18301@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.4) by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <12.19D8F178@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 2:11:57 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9233; Fri, 19 Jun 98 03:14:33 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 0487; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 03:14:34 +0200 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 01:36:52 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, Andy Finkenstadt In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:24:40 -0500 from Andy Finkenstadt Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:24:40 -0500 Andy Finkenstadt said: >How do we account for sf-lovers-request being the one of the first (if >not THE first) mailing list to use -request as the place to send >subscription requests? We account for it like that. I said: >I'm afraid the first use of -request for the command address dates back ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to somewhere around 93. I never said -request did not exist before 93, in fact I said the opposite in an earlier message. The -request convention dates back to the 70s and, while personally I think it is stupid, it was a well-established de facto standard when I wrote LISTSERV, so I put my personal feelings aside and implemented it. And I implemented it in the same manner as the de facto standard from the 70s, which was to forward to the list administrator. The current default implementation in LISTSERV is to return an automatic response with a list FAQ, and forward on to the list owner. This can be configured by the list owner to remove the auto-response or remove the forward, presumably after putting a human contact address in the FAQ. As far as I know, the first time the -request address was aliased to a MLM address was around 1993 (it could have been 1992, I did not save the message in question so I don't have the exact date). The rationale was to save time for the list owner (NOT the user) by pointing the address to a computer that would respond for you. There are many situations where this makes sense, nowadays people are moving in the opposite direction and the emphasis is on making things easier for the users, at the list owner's expense if this is what it takes. People who wish to implement RFC2142 with LISTSERV can simply change the relevant /etc/aliases entry to: xyz-request: listserv I expect that 0.1% to 1% of the LISTSERV installed base will make this change. As for new-list et al, virtually all our outsourcing customers announce their lists using the web subscription form, or in some cases using the automatic subscribe mailbox (I know this because they typically ask us to review the instructions for technical correctness, I imagine that non-outsourcing customers do the same). Once in a very great while, there is a "send mail to LISTSERV@..." It is becoming more and more frequent for new clients to express concern that the e-mail nature of the mailing list is too readily apparent, and that their users will get a bad impression if they discover that their service is implemented using obsolete, clunky e-mail technology. So why have a mailing list? Well, they use HTML mail, which is not mail but "WWW-based push technology." Many have asked "How do I disable the e-mail interface completely? We don't want people to be able to send e-mail commands, we want to force everyone to use the web interface." And a few have actually disabled e-mail access altogether. This is a trend, not a majority by any means, at least not yet, but I do think it will soon be impossible to offer a mailing list without a web interface, and that people will use whatever access method they are most familiar with. It is just as Chuq said, users have no religious feelings for technology X or technology Y, what matters is the data. Some sign off and use exclusively the web interface, some ignore the web interface altogether, personally I use it whenever it is more convenient - for searches and for some list management tasks, for other list management tasks I use the old method because it works better for me. I know people with the same background as me who do otherwise and the whole point is that the machine adapts to the users, not the other way around. While I have strong feelings against disabling the e-mail interface, I also have semi-strong feelings against refusing to offer a web interface or whatever new technology may make the most sense. I get upset on technical grounds when people claim that LISTSERV would work so much better/faster using a DBMS back end and that it should be rewritten to work this way and simply require people to buy a DBMS, but there are cases where this makes a lot of sense so LISTSERV gives you this option, you can run all your lists this way or just one or none, whatever makes sense for you. You can even run your service without a single list, formulating DBMS queries as the need arises to send information to narrowly targeted audiences. Information technology tools should be organized like a big smorgasbord where everyone can take his pick based on technical or cultural background, not "This is the menu and if you don't like it, you have the right to starve." Remember, what people are coming back for is the information, not the tools used to retrieve it. Only a techie would ever think this way, and techies can adapt to whatever reasonable system people come up with. You need to design for people who have better things to do than work on a computer all day long. Eric From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 01:56:41 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA25703; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 01:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thomas.ped.kun.nl (thomas.ped.kun.nl [131.174.201.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA25689 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 01:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tbi25 (tbi25.theo.kun.nl [131.174.185.125]) by thomas.ped.kun.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA08590 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:45:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980619105527.00874400@thomas.ped.kun.nl> X-Sender: hlrutten@thomas.ped.kun.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:55:27 +0200 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Henk Rutten Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk review list-managers From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 10:26:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA04807; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msd-system-1.massapequa.k12.ny.us (mail.massapequa.k12.ny.us [207.97.185.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA04795 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from empnet.com.empnet.com ([208.205.169.188]) by msd-system-1.massapequa.k12.ny.us (Netscape Messaging Server 3.5) with SMTP id 268 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:25:01 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980619102327.006a68a8@mail.mmgco.com> X-Sender: billg@mail.mmgco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:23:27 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bill Garnett Subject: Pentium II Xeon Processor - Product Launch Briefing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'd like to tell members of the List Managers' Mail List list about an interesting event coming up on Monday, June 29, at 10 am Pacific Time. Intel Corporate Vice Presidents Pat Gelsinger and John Miner will be giving a high level briefing about a new Intel processor, the Pentium II Xeon, which is designed exclusively for midrange and higher servers and workstations. The Pentium II Xeon is represents a significant increase in server and workstation performance. Pat and John will explain the new processor's performance in detail. This briefing is aimed at IT/IS and LOB managers, network administrators and anyone with an interest in high performance servers and work stations. It will emphasize hard data about the Pentium II Xeon and what its capabilities mean, in a practical sense, to network users and managers. List managers may be interested in the potential use of servers using this greatly enhanced power. Go to http://www.intel.com/PentiumII/Xeon/Webcast/index.htm?iid={whatsnew=webcast} for more details and to register to receive a reminder of the event. Bill Garnett billg@mmgco.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 10:41:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA05157; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA05081 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.43] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #2) id 0yn5BG-0001k2-00; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:42:30 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980619184127.008843d0@stingray.ivision.co.uk> X-Sender: manarpop@stingray.ivision.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:41:27 +0100 To: Bill Garnett From: Manar Hussain Subject: Re: Pentium II Xeon Processor - Product Launch Briefing Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980619102327.006a68a8@mail.mmgco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk What a complete load of b**locks - this is just a poor attempt at hiding SPAM. Any list system that already uses Intel hardware will have no real benefit from the new processors, CPU performance from current AMD/Cyrix or Intel CPUs are just fine to get decent performance, it's other resoureces that matter more. At 10:23 19/06/98 -0700, Bill Garnett wrote: >I'd like to tell members of the List Managers' Mail List list about an >interesting event coming up on Monday, June 29, at 10 am Pacific Time. > >Intel Corporate Vice Presidents Pat Gelsinger and John Miner will be giving >a high level briefing about a new Intel processor, the Pentium II Xeon, >which is designed exclusively for midrange and higher servers and >workstations. The Pentium II Xeon is represents a significant increase in >server and workstation performance. > >Pat and John will explain the new processor's performance in detail. This >briefing is aimed at IT/IS and LOB managers, network administrators and >anyone with an interest in high performance servers and work stations. It >will emphasize hard data about the Pentium II Xeon and what its >capabilities mean, in a practical sense, to network users and managers. >List managers may be interested in the potential use of servers using this >greatly enhanced power. > >Go to >http://www.intel.com/PentiumII/Xeon/Webcast/index.htm?iid={whatsnew=webcast} >for more details and to register to receive a reminder of the event. > >Bill Garnett >billg@mmgco.com > > From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 11:11:39 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA05804; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA05797 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA28474 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA22684 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:04:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:04:56 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Aid and comfort to the enemy Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Manar Hussain wrote: > What a complete load of b**locks - this is just a poor attempt at > hiding SPAM. So why did you quote back and repost the entire spam? Think before you reply. Thank you very little for your contribution to spam propagation on the Internet. With enemies like you, spammers need no allies. - murr - From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 11:27:13 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA05945; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:11:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [209.157.82.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA05938 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [209.157.82.5]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-980201) with ESMTP id LAA07662; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <358AAADD.A2696065@postmodern.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:16:41 -0700 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Pentium II Xeon Processor - Product Launch Briefing References: <3.0.5.32.19980619184127.008843d0@stingray.ivision.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Manar Hussain wrote: > What a complete load of b**locks - this is just a poor attempt at > hiding SPAM. I have asked the poster to refrain from similar postings in the future. -- Michael C. Berch List-Managers list manager mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 12:11:35 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA06945; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msd-system-1.massapequa.k12.ny.us (mail.massapequa.k12.ny.us [207.97.185.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA06938 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from empnet.com.empnet.com ([208.205.169.188]) by msd-system-1.massapequa.k12.ny.us (Netscape Messaging Server 3.5) with SMTP id 352; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:02:38 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980619120108.006e0e84@mail.mmgco.com> X-Sender: billg@mail.mmgco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:01:08 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bill Garnett Subject: Apology To List Cc: "Manar Hussain Jeff Wasilko Michael C. Berch" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk To Members of the List Manager List Today I posted a message to the List regarding a particular product. Several people have objected to it as SPAM. This was not my intent. Rather, I believed it was a specific message, announcing an event which might be of some interest to members of the list. I clearly have not understood what is acceptable to the list and for that I apologize and I will not repeat the mistake. The mistake was mine, and not our clients, so blame me and not them. Again, please accept my apology, I did not mean to offend anyone with the announcement Bill Garnett From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 12:41:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA07698; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA07661 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21370; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA15533; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:35:41 -0700 To: Manar Hussain cc: Bill Garnett , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Pentium II Xeon Processor - Product Launch Briefing In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:41:27 +0100. <3.0.5.32.19980619184127.008843d0@stingray.ivision.co.uk> X-Copyright: (c) 1998 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:35:40 -0700 Message-ID: <15531.898284940@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.5.32.19980619184127.008843d0@stingray.ivision.co.uk>, you wrote : >What a complete load of b**locks - this is just a poor attempt at hiding SPAM. Now hold on just a second here. I have to say that for me also, the first word that jumped into _my_ mind when I saw this was `SPAM', but _I_ happen to be extraordinarily sensitized to anything that smells even remotely like spam, so that's not terribly sur- prising. I'm constantly preoccupied with the subject of spam, and I'm starting to see spam in my sleep. I know this about myself, so when thing like this come up, I have to force myself to take a step back and really consider the issues on such bordeline cases before I start screaming `SPAM'! OK, so how many of the typical hallmarks of spam did we see in this instance? What was the real spam coefficient of the message in question. Well, it was sent to a mailing list. That is really neither here nor there. It _does_ mean that it ended up being seen by a lot of people, but at the origination point is was _still_ only one message... not a zillion. If I ken for a fact that this was also sent to a zillion other mailing lists, or even 1/4 zillion, then I would call it spam, but I don't know that so I'm not ready to say that. SPAM POINTS: 0 Was it forged? No. SPAM POINTS: -1 Was is improperly relayed? As far as I know, no. SPAM POINTS: -1 Was it selling something obviously shady, fradulent, or of questionable moral worth? No. SPAM POINTS: -1 Was it overtly soliciting readers to send in either checks or cash? No. SPAM POINTS: -1 Was it even vaguely related to the actual topic of this specific mailing list? That one could be argued either way I think. This certainly pushes (if not outright breaking) the boundaries of what might be considered ``on topic'' for this mailing list. Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say that it is ambiguous and _maybe_ related to the topic of this list. SPAM POINTS: 0 Was it sent to the list by someone who we have not seen as an actual and/or normal participant here before, i.e. by some ``outsider'' who may have only joined for the purpose of sending _this_ specific announcement/advertisment? It appears so. SPAM POINTS: +1 Was the nature of the announcement commercial, _and_ was it such that its posting might conceivably be of greater benefit to the company that sent it or that authorized it than it was to the average person who received it (counting the people for whom it was just an annoyance)? Well, yea, probably. SPAM POINTS: +1 ------------------ OK. Add it all up and this still comes out with a slightly negative spam coefficient. In short, unless you are a real hard-core purist, it wasn't spam. More importantly however, I want to make the point that I feel that those of us who are working day in and day out to get the _real_ spam and the _real_ spammers off the net should in fact be givning people... and especially well know and well established companies like Intel... the benefit of the doubt in these sorts of borderline cases. We should do that for two reasons, i.e. number one, because (as we all know) there is more than enough _real_ and unambiguous spam out there for us to be worrying about, and number two, because if we get _too_ fanatic about these borderline cases, then otherwise respectable companies (like Intel, etc.) may just throw up their hands and stop trying to make _any_ efforts to live within our generally accepted rules and traditions. I mean if these kinds of companies become convinced that no matter what they do, _somebody_ is going to complain, then that kinda takes away the incentives for them to at least _try_ to behave somewhat responsibly in the ways they promote things on the net. And if we ever see things deteriorating to _that_ point... well then chaos will ensue. Bottom line: Even I am willing to criticize the original poster for having been ``off topic'', but I'm not ready to say that he ``spammed'' this list. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 13:26:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA08784; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA08772 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14268 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:20:58 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA08020 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:20:57 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199806192020.PAA08020@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Pentium II Xeon Processor - Product Launch Briefing To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:20:57 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Like Ron, I first reacted to this note with my usual visceral disgust for spam. Then I did a little checking, though not quite along the same lines as Ron. I looked up the poster, and it appears to be some kind of public relations or advertising agency in Oregon, not Intel. No, it isn't spam. Yes, it is a posting by some overzealous PR person. But isn't the phrase 'overzealous PR person' slightly redundant? I would have said that this was at best an EXTREME stretch of relevance for this list. By that same logic, ANYBODY online should be interested in this announcement, since by definition they have an interest in computers, if only as users. (But, if this post showed up on EVERY maiing list, it would then qualify as 'spam' under Ron's formula.) Anyway, I think the poster has been chastised sufficiently by our List Manager. Let's get back to fighting among ourselves over 'standards'. :-) -- Mike Nolan PS. In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that this post was composed on an AMD-based computer. :-) From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 14:00:11 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA09784; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ncr-sd.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM (reverse.NCR.COM [192.127.94.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA09751 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jabberwocky (jabberwocky.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM [153.64.69.123]) by ncr-sd.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA29440; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806192044.NAA29440@ncr-sd.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> X-Sender: @ X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:43:33 -0700 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: Bill Houle Subject: Re: Pentium II Xeon Processor - Product Launch Briefing Cc: Bill Garnett , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <15531.898284940@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:35 PM 6/19/98 -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >OK. Add it all up and this still comes out with a slightly negative spam >coefficient. In short, unless you are a real hard-core purist, it wasn't >spam. Too many terms. There is Spam (unwanted, forged, solicitous). There is UCE (unwanted, commercial). There is UBE (unwanted, bulk marketing). Call me a purist, but its all the same to me. Essentially, anything I didn't ask for is Spam. Even if I am on a Web list, I don't like Web product announcements. Just because the list may aimed at a particular audience does not make targetted marketing valid. Only when it is a list maintained by the mfgr is it acceptable. Otherwise, I never signed up for that kind of junk. Although there was no exchange of $$ proposed in this mail, there was still some obvious marketing involved. I could accept that it was just an off-topic post, but the fact that list-managers could hardly be confused with something Intel/CPU-oriented makes the whole thing rather suspect and I am not quite willing to be so tolerant. Forgiving, yes. Tolerant, no. --bill From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 15:11:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA11732; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA11724 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA10042; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:08:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199806192208.RAA10042@dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com> Received: from nbw-nj11-19.ix.netcom.com(207.94.119.147) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010025; Fri Jun 19 17:08:03 1998 X-Sender: hot2trot@popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:08:02 -0400 To: Adam Bailey From: hot2trot@bigfoot.com (Burt Juda) Subject: Re: integrated delivery system Cc: In-Reply-To: <199806190003.TAA00216@quilla.tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:03 PM 6/18/98 -0500, Adam Bailey wrote: >>Everyone understands that addresses have to be copied exactly. >If they *copy* them, perhaps. But some people just try to guess at what >they see/saw, making assumptions along the way. I can't even count the >number of times this month I've corrected people who spelled "LISTSERV" >as "LISTSERVE," and couldn't understand why their mail was being bounced. Ever think of adding an ALIAS instead of answering all that mail??? /etc/mail/aliases: listserve: listserv From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 16:27:55 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA12804; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 16:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA12797 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 16:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [208.145.52.97] (adamb.tezcat.com [208.145.52.97]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id SAA00837 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:23:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199806192323.SAA00837@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: integrated delivery system Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:23:42 -0500 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 6/19/98 5:08 PM, Burt Juda wrote... >At 07:03 PM 6/18/98 -0500, Adam Bailey wrote: > >>>Everyone understands that addresses have to be copied exactly. > >>If they *copy* them, perhaps. But some people just try to guess at what >>they see/saw, making assumptions along the way. I can't even count the >>number of times this month I've corrected people who spelled "LISTSERV" >>as "LISTSERVE," and couldn't understand why their mail was being bounced. > >Ever think of adding an ALIAS instead of answering all that mail??? First off, I'm not the site admin, I'm just a multi-list owner. However, if I were, I'd have to wait for the other hundred-some L-Soft LISTSERV sites to add aliases. I'll get at the end of the line. Nah, nevermind, I won't. I don't get paid per subscriber. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb/ From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 17:11:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA13290; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id RAA13281 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [194.112.53.21] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #2) id 0ynBIz-0003WF-00; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:15:00 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980620011311.0082d4a0@stingray.ivision.co.uk> X-Sender: manarpop@stingray.ivision.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:13:11 +0100 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) From: Manar Hussain Subject: Re: Pentium II Xeon Processor - Product Launch Briefing In-Reply-To: <199806192020.PAA08020@celery.tssi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 15:20 19/06/98 -0500, Mike Nolan wrote: >Anyway, I think the poster has been chastised sufficiently by our List >Manager. And he apologised to boot - if he's honest about having learnt a lesson (no reasons to think otherwise) then not too bad all round really. It can be tricky can't it, especially if you're new to things and nobody has said "be careful - find your feet first". Reminds a little of the people who think they're doing everyone on a list a favour by passing on that really important note about a certain email that will fry your computer if you open it. Manar - probably overly trigegr happy at the moment but that's your fault for mailing things on a friday! From list-managers-owner Fri Jun 19 19:56:34 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA15963; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA15956 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chuqui2@localhost) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15800 ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:59:51 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199806192020.PAA08020@celery.tssi.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:56:58 -0700 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Pentium II Xeon Processor - Product Launch Briefing Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:20 PM -0700 6/19/98, Mike Nolan wrote: > No, it isn't spam. Yes, it is a posting by some overzealous PR person. > But isn't the phrase 'overzealous PR person' slightly redundant? As someone who works with PR people on a pretty regular basis these days, no, it's not. There are good PR people and bad PR people. you just don't notice the good ones... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Sat Jun 20 06:26:28 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA26524; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 06:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cat.salemcarriers.com (cat.salemcarriers.com [208.134.81.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA26516 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 06:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yost (Janeway-25.netunlimited.net [208.128.132.74]) by cat.salemcarriers.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA04932 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:13:47 -0400 Message-ID: <199806200919290740.000D79FD@mail.salemcarriers.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.35 Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:19:29 -0400 From: "Spencer Yost" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Problem with annoyance attacks Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have a user who has found a way to pester and annoy everyone on one of my lists. Basically, he simply takes every message and forwards the message to a bogus user at another site (sites and names hidden to protect the innocent). The remote site bounces the message with "No such user" , ordinarily no problem, but the site incorrectly routes the error to the sender of a message rather than the address in the errors-to header of the message. The consequence is, every time a subscriber posts to my list, they get this error message sent to their email address. As you can imagine, this upsets the subscribers immensely. I currently am trying to isolate the address doing this forwarding, by trying to sync maillog times and the times the error message returns, but have not had any luck(over a thousand subscribers and this method o