PDA

View Full Version : RFC: slimdevices.com mailing list configuration



Rob Funk
2003-12-05, 20:45
I tried to stay out of this and let the topic die, but this is getting out
of hand.

"Mark C. Langston" <mark (AT) bitshift (DOT) org> wrote:
> When you backhandedly and dismissively insult my profession, and that
> of countless others? Nope. Not a whit.

Guess what? I'm a sysadmin too. I grew up on elm, graduated to mutt, and
now mostly use Kmail. I'm familiar with most of the lists you mentioned,
I'm on some others that would go with those, and I'm familiar with the
longstanding arguments about this topic. I got Jason's point and his
humor, and I largely agree with him. I almost responded to your list of
techie lists similarly to the way he did.

> Reasons munging Reply-To: in transit is bad, beyond those already
> mentioned here:

I'm pretty sure that MailMan takes care of most of these. And none is
really the end of the world anyway.

> Is it *REALLY* worth the convenience of not having to exercise the two
> braincells necessary to hit a different key or different button, or to
> pay attention to the To: header before you send an email?

This is not a techie list. On a techie list this is a reasonable
expectation. On a non-techie list it is not.

> You see, it's all hypothetical now, but each of the above WILL happen,
> multiple times, unless and until the Reply-To: munging is removed. It's
> inevitable -- ask anyone who's run a mailing list of any substance that
> has had Reply-To: munged for any length of time.

Yeah, ask me. I've run such a list. No big deal.

> Is it *REALLY* worth the convenience of not having to exercise the two
> braincells necessary to hit a different key or different button, or to
> pay attention to the To: header before you send an email?

Speaking from experience using and running both types of lists: Yes.

> It may seem so now. I suspect your tune will change when the above
> happens. I suspect the list will change when the above happens, much to
> your chagrin.

I suspect you will deliberately try to mess with the list to provoke such a
change.

> You see, it's all hypothetical now, but each of the above WILL happen,
> multiple times, unless and until the Reply-To: munging is removed.

Is that a threat?

> I value diagreement highly. It's how things get done, and get changed.
> I have little patience for people who want to bang their head against
> existing standards and insist things should be different because *they
> say so*, without going through the appropriate processes to change them.

You're banging your head against the existing standards on this list,
insisting things should be different because you say so, without going
through the appropriate processes to change them (i.e., pursuade Dean and
Sean, not abuse people until things change).

> Rational people call the latter behavior "working within the system for
> change". Rational people call the former behavior "idiotic, childish
> and ultimately futile".

Yep, "idiotic, childish, and ultimately futile" describes your behavior to
a T.

> You'd argue with physicists about whether the laws of inertia should
> apply to you after a car crash, wouldn't you? Furrfu!

A system configuration setting is not a law of physics.

> Present a workable alternative and demonstrate how it avoids the
> problems with the existing, broken alternative.

The current system is working just fine.

> Oh, and by the way: The "average user" to whom you refer wouldn't know
> a Reply-To: header from a Referrer: tag.

Which is pretty much why munging reply-to is a good thing on non-techie
lists.

> > But hey, if you don't get it, you don't get it. After all, if NANOG-L
> > and the postfix mailing lists don't munge reply-to headers, it must
> > be the true and proper way of things!
>
> As insulting as that is, I hope you realize you've just stated, "just
> because those with years upon years of running mailing lists, networks,
> MTAs, and so forth, and whose hundreds upon hundreds of person-years of
> experience have shown them that Certain Things Just Aren't Good
> Ideas(TM)" have decided not to munge Reply-To:, doesn't mean we should
> pay any attention to them!"

If I'm running a techie list, I won't munge reply-to. If I'm running a
non-techie list, I will. It's not about certain things being bad ideas.
It's about playing to the audience.

> When the list lay in burning ruins after repeated episodes of the
> numbered items above, I hope you realize what your biased and selfish
> approach has bought you.

In that case, I hope you're banned from the list for causing problems out
of a desire to see your dire predictions vindicated.

--
==============================| "A slice of life isn't the whole cake
Rob Funk <rfunk (AT) funknet (DOT) net> | One tooth will never make a full grin"
http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind"

Mark C. Langston
2003-12-05, 23:56
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:45:19PM -0500, Rob Funk wrote:
>
> This is not a techie list. On a techie list this is a reasonable
> expectation. On a non-techie list it is not.
>

Following standards and conventions is only appropriate on techie lists?
violating them is perfectly acceptable on non-techie lists?

I see. So you're perfectly fine with bottom-quoting,
"quoted-printable", large attachments, and similar crap being sent to
the list too, I suppose. After all, we should only follow standards and
conventions on "techie" lists.

And a word on that: This list is for a product that, last time I
checked, assumes you know how to add a new networked device to an
RFC1918-compliant home network and install perl correctly, at a minimum.
It's also for a product that's by-and-large marketed to the Linux crowd
(see repeated /. coverage) because it's OSS and Perl-based.

That's far from the "non-techie" crowd.

>
> I suspect you will deliberately try to mess with the list to provoke such a
> change.
>


No, I won't. But I suspect you'll happily shoot and otherwise vilify
the messenger when those things do come to pass. I said they were
inevitable simply because they've occurred on every mailing list with
which I'm familiar of any substance and size that had ever had Reply-To:
munged. And I'm familiar with quite a few lists.

>
> Is that a threat?
>

No; again, it's simply a statement of fact. That you interpret it as a
threat is telling, however. Perhaps you're just a tad over-defensive?

I'm not an unreasonable person. I am, however, a person of principle.
Sean knows this. Dean knows this. The rest of the original
contributors know this, I believe. I don't know if it's still in the
current version of the server, but if it is, you might want to check the
developer's name easter egg sometime. I'm happy to contribute. I'm
just as happy to leav ewhen things get irrational, as they seem to be
becoming.


>
> You're banging your head against the existing standards on this list,

Dean asked that this issue be hashed out publicly.

>
> A system configuration setting is not a law of physics.
>

It is until it's changed or subverted. And we weren't discussing the
setting qua setting; we were discussing the setting as an embodiment of
or variance from a net-wide standard and historical convention.

> The current system is working just fine.


....for now, which was my point. Perhaps you missed it?



> It's about playing to the audience.
>

Yes, you do seem to want to do that, don't you? How about engaging in
debate rather than rhetoric?

>
> In that case, I hope you're banned from the list for causing problems out
> of a desire to see your dire predictions vindicated.
>


If Sean asks me to leave, I'll leave.

--
Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark (AT) bitshift (DOT) org mark (AT) seti (DOT) org
Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org

Dan Sully
2003-12-06, 00:24
* Jason <jason (AT) pagefamily (DOT) net> shaped the electrons to say...

> Bologna flame wars and ego strutting like this are exactly why this list
> should be retired and replaced with a web based forum with MODERATION.

Web forums are impossible to follow.

Really, this doesn't happen often. May even be the first time.

It, like everything else will pass.

Move along, nothing to see here. More code to write.

-D
--
<weezyl> It'll have pretty flowers and NUMA GET OUT OF MY HEAD.