Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(December 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Clueless zubscribers?
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu>
Date: 12 Dec 1997 01:21:36 -0600
To: List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk's message of Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:50:02 +0000 (GMT)
References: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:32:17 PST." <v03110789b0abc5fbcae8@[207.167.80.70]> <199712072350.claire.97121317@siberia.demon.co.uk>

>>>>> "CM" == Claire McNab <claire@siberia.demon.co.uk> writes:

CM> The thing about the foo-unzub mechanism, is that:

CM> a) it's the most easily understood and easily used of the mechanisms
CM> I've seen to date;

But it doesn't have a mechanism to specify the address to remove...  So in
the instructions, we have to describe one method, then switch gears
massively and describe a completely different method.  The end result would
seem to be more confusion.  A separate address for zubscription would seem
to have the additional problem of trying to zubscribe spammers to your list
when they misdirect mail to it.

CM> b) It's part of a proposed standard.

Which one?  We already have the proposed list-header standard, which makes
this irrelevant.  Hopefully we won't get several overlapping standards;
it's hard enough keeping up with several moving targets.  We don't need any
more, especially if they conflict.

Not that I think this is a bad idea, just that it needs to be thought out
just a bit more.

 - J<



References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list..
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pagantt@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
Next: Re: An alternative to spamming?
From: "Manar Hussain" <manar@ivision.co.uk>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Clueless subscribers?
From: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab)
Next: Re: Clueless subscribers?
From: Grant Neufeld <grant@achilles.net>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com