At 7:51 AM 12/19/99 Jeff Lasman wrote:
> At 09:57 PM 12/18/99 Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
> >On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> > > I suggest that the reply_to argument in the config file for this list be
> > > changed to read " reply_to = Majordomo-users@GreatCircle.com". I
> > believe this
> > > change would be appropriate for this list, and that we would see more
> > responses
> > > posted to the list.
> >Even the incorrect and repetitious ones?
> Sometimes we must accept the bad to get the good, Roger.
As I started this with a request for a change in the generic Reply To: header,
I'll chime in now. The first arrogant response I received made me see red.
Thank you, Jeff, for your later post which shows understanding of the plight of
we list-managers who come here searching for information on how to make our
lists run better. We may not know anything about the server itself; our
involvement is with the config file(s) and with the subscribers. And, when we
deal with our list-owners, we would like to sound like we aren't completely
stupid. What I've learned here by lurking has helped me in several situations
and I appreciate it.
Far be it from me to try to change the culture of a list community. I haven't
been here long enough to attempt that. But let someone announce that a list
friendly to the needs of list managers has been set up and I'll be one of the
first to join.
>From what I've seen there isn't enough traffic on this list to really bother
anyone, and it certainly is to the benefit of us less-technically knowledgeable
list managers to be able to prompt a response from someone who REALLY knows
what makes the server tick.
But the question is still unanswered. Should questions be answered ON THE LIST?
Roger would have all newbie questions ignored. That means that if I know the
answer to a question I may only answer privately, off line, as that may be
something that has been answered here previously that I may not have seen and
certainly has not been seen by the person asking? Where are the instructions
for the proper format of a summary post? Should the subject be a new,
standalone one or should it be a reply to the original post? If I send an
answer to someone expected to make a summary post, what instructions should I
include to remind that person of his/her duty? Are there url references to
these rules? They aren't in the welcome message.
I've responded to several queries here and received (private) thank you's for
them. Someone out there is interested in my answers, even if they are available
in the archive. But no more, as I now know the rules.
By the way, has anyone really spent time "searching" the archives? I have, and
I've learned a lot from them. But without any kind of subject search capability
they are difficult, at best, to use.
I'm in your living room and I'll follow your rules as long as I am here because
I'm a guest in your house. But please tell me what the rules are, because IT IS
VERY DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW UNWRITTEN RULES. And then it is downright irritating
to be criticized for ignoring them.
Rio Linda, CA
> (Since by now you know we'll disagree on a lot of points, this is a good
> time to point out that I don't react at all to flames on any list; anyone
> who wants to disagree with me; fine. I'll certainly discuss it on the list
> if and as it remains ontopic. But flames should go to
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> where they will be handled appropriately <smile>.)
> I do understand that this is a religious war and that I won't convert
> anyone; the purpose of this response is so that other, never, users of
> lists in general and this one in particular, will understand what's going on.
> >The tradition on technical lists of long standing on the net is a good
> >one: replies go to the original poster, who summarizes responses in a
> >single follow-up to the list.
> This was once a good and important tradition. However it never was cast in
> stone, and certainly is on the way out. All the lists at <isp-lists>, and
> the <inet-access> list for ISP professionals, for example, use a list
> reply-to header.
> >The fact that askers are shirking their responsibility to summarize does
> >not mean the rest of us are willing to get 20x the amount of mail. I
> >would certainly unsubscribe, as I suspect would many other old-timers, if
> >this list went to default-reply-to-all.
> As the USE of the Internet changes, so does the "clue" level of the
> Internet's users. Unfortunately. As the Internet moves from "small" to
> "biggest thing in the world" we who try to administer it and keep up to
> date on it don't always have much time. I agree that I wouldn't want to
> get 20x the amount of mail. I think everyone agrees.
> Unfortunately there are a lot of newbies on this list. They don't
> understand what you just wrote. And the list's welcome message doesn't say
> a thing about it, either, so how is anyone to know?
> And I often (and a lot of people like me) don't have the time to take to
> summarize responses.
> I urge you (sincerely and seriously) to check over this list for the last
> few months as I've just finished doing...
> You'll probably find, as I have, that there are virtually NO summary
> answers posted for any question here.
> So perhaps SOME type of change is necessary?
> >(For that matter, many of us who know the answers to questions simply do
> >not respond at all if the answers are in the FAQ or archives; again, it's
> >your responsibility to look AT BOTH first before asking.)
> Yes, but if I'm a newcomer, how do I know that? If I'm clueless, how do I
> start learning?
> I usually respond with something like:
> That was addressed in a post made on the list back on December
> 16 of 1998; you can find the post in the archives at
> <archive-address-goes-here> by searching for (suggested search
> topic goes here).
> That way I've had to spend a minute verifyin that I'm right about the
> answer being in the archives, and I've taught someone to fish instead of
> just feeding him.
> I've never kept records, but I have managed lists for years, and I don't
> see a larger noise-to-signal ratio on our hosted-lists based on whether or
> not the reply-to is set.
> Personally I'd like to see "reply-to" set to the list, and a rather
> agressive anti-flame stance by the list manager.
> I think it leads to better dissemination of knowledge overall, and I think
> that's good for the net.
> What I don't like is people using "reply-to-all" to reply to both the list
> and the original author; that gives me to copies, which get filtered into
> different locations, which I must handle separately. It also makes my
> filters a bit more complex.
> Thanks for the opportunity to express myself <smile>. I know I can't
> convert anyone.