--On Wednesday, December 19, 2001 5:09 PM -0500 Tim Pierce
<twp@rootsweb.com> wrote:
> Brent Chapman posted a very prompt, informative and penitent
> explanation in response to your recent whinging.
Yes - I now know that he did because another member forwarded it to me, and
my thanks to Brent for at least letting us after I "whinged."
However, in what I assume was another artifact of the transition process,
Brent's message did not appear in either the "V1 #1" digest that was
emitted Monday, or the V10 #181 digest that was emitted yesterday, so I
didn't see it until this afternoon.
> There appears to
> be something wrong with the Mhonarc archives of this list, but you
> can find his message in
> http://www.greatcircle.com/lists/list-managers/archive/list-managers.2001
> 12.
That URL is now crisply up to date; but when I checked it this morning
before posting (being long used to SLDS, or "since last Digest syndrome")
it still stopped on December 19th. I'm glad it's back.
I've had a couple of absolutely splenetic backchannel responses to my
posting, which only proves that it takes all kinds to run the world of
lists I guess :), but I just want to point out that this is all an
excellent example of real world list management risks and problems.
If I had told the list "Hey, I've been thinking of taking
PORCELAIN-FIGURINES-L over to Majordomo2, what's the procedure" you would
have been full of very sensible advice, including notifying the members of
the upcoming switchover, making sure I understood how to preserve settings
and numbering, letting people know once it's done, making sure they had a
working address to reach me at in case of problems, etc. (None of which
was done correctly here.)
Also, if I had performed a similarly bumpy list transition for
Jules-Verne-Lovers Digest, with none of the above advice followed, so that
lots of listmembers woke up to strange stuff in their mailboxes, and if one
of those Jules Verne lovers had the audacity to mention it on the list and
say "what in the name of Nautilus and Nemo is going on??" and I came here
and told the list "naturally, I blocked that guy at the sendmail level,"
you would have told me I needed to enroll in anger management courses (with
a double major in clues) pronto. But if I raise the same question about
THIS list, I hear sendmail-level blocking seriously suggested from people
who are, I assume, entrusted with real members out there somewhere. Gives
ya a chill.
Related: I am somewhat curious to know why MJ2 does nothing to identify
itself, or the list, in the headers, beyond the configurable [bracketed]
subject prefix. Are they trying to masquerade as individual mail to get
past spam blocks? Is this configurable? I confess I never learned the
package, presumably this is answerable. I would suggest that if it is
configurable, managers (including this one) should turn on some header ID.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
