[sf-lug] Ubuntu release ("back on-list" sub thread)

[Ernest De Leon]

I was not arguing the technical standards and such about the list behavior,
I was arguing from the end-user stand point.  In the end, all of these
systems are designed for users to interact with.  I used to believe that so
many technical things were set in stone and should be implemented as
'standards' regardless of anything else.  Needless to say, I realized
(fortunately long ago) that all of these technical standards and processes
are worthless if the user base is adversely affected.  (That point can be
debated back and forth, but I think you understand what I mean.)  Within
reason, your users should never have to bend around IT to get their work
done, IT should be flexible to allow end users to get their work done.
Again, that point can be debated as well.  I just wanted you to know that I
went and read your link and while it may carry merit in the strictest
technical sense, it bears no influence on a decision that negatively impacts
the end-user experience.

I see your point about 'original authors' versus 'the list' and
differentiating between 'reply' and 'reply to,' but again, when I send
something to the list, it is meant to be disseminated to everyone on the
list.  Since the response is to be treated in the same fashion for the
benefit of all on the list, although the list is not the 'author' per se, it
should be treated as such.  If I mean to respond to an individual on the
list (the original author) I will compose a separate email to do so.  You
also have to consider what the desired behavior is most of the time.  I can
tell you that I rarely attempt to respond to an individual author on list, I
expect to reply to the list as a whole 99% of the time.  Your experience,
however, may be different.

Once again I will agree with you on one point...auto-responders wreak havoc
with such 'munging.'

E

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Quoting Ernest De Leon (edeleonjr at gmail.com):
>
> > Your argument....
>
> This is not "my argument".  The IETF settled the entire munging debate
> seven years ago.  Any legitimacy that munging once aspired to evaporated
> at that time.
>
> Don't take my word for it.  Follow the provided link.
>
> > ...makes sense if-and-only-if you assume that the mailing list as
> > a whole is not the sender and intended recipient.
>
> This is a confused misreading of what I wrote.  I can only suggest going
> back and reading again.  And follow the provided link.
>
> In any event, I will not tolerate that sort of (notorious) technological
> and social mishap -- and exercise in system administration incompetence
> --  to be imposed on any mailing list operating on my server.  Period.
>
>
> > your opinion....
>
> This is not "my opinion".
>
> Either re-read, or don't.  We're done.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>



-- 
Ernest de Leon
http://www.smbtechadvice.com

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - A common 18th Century sentiment
voiced by Benjamin Franklin

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government." - Edward Abbey

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -
Edmund Burke, English statesman and political philosopher (1729-1797)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20080427/b20e0ee1/attachment.html>