[sf-lug] SF-LUG meeting notes for Sunday June 2, 2019

[Bobbie Sellers]

On 6/4/19 12:37 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Just a data point:
>
> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>
>> Then I had to do something else and nearly forgot to send it
>> at all but came back in the evening and misaddressed the notes and sent
>> them to another mailing list that is more tolerant of images.
> The _default_ per-posting size limit in GNU Mailman is _40K_.
> (As a reminder, your twice-repeated post got held for listadmin review
> because you had attached a 200kB photo to it, bloating it way over this
> mailing list's size limit.)
     Yes I recall the incident much I might wish to not recall it.
>
> So, lucky you, that you were able to force-send it out to all the
> subscribers of some other mailing list -- and, by the way, _which_ other
> mailing list is it where 100% of the subscribers are fine with having
> force-sent to them a photo of an SF-LUG meeting?  Hmm?  I'd really like
> to know.

     It is not a topic of any discussion but we have rather high limits 
on that list.
One or more of the administrators of that list are on fairly good terms 
with me
and enjoy what I have to say even about Linux and the SF-LUG.   I have not
been able to get the few Linux users in the groups to attend a meeting yet
because they are busy people.  One member though is in regular attendance
at our meetings.
>
> (Above would be typical of the salient questions I ask SF-LUG principals
> here, questions that then consistently get ignored, because evidently
> I'm considered your unpaid butler who is to be ignored whenever deemed a
> nuisance.)
>
> That aside, I think you'll find that very few mailing lists hike up the
> size limit.  Because, and this is the main point, going out of one's way
> to hike up the limits, just so that someone can blitz hundreds of people
> and the server's bandwidth and storage, is seldom done.
>
> And, speaking of that, do I correctly infer that you elected to ignore
> and not even acknowledge my suggestion of using a free image-hosting
> service like Shutterfly and posting URLs rather than force-sending
> binary attachments to hundreds of mailing list subscribers?  So, once
> again, the 'ignore Rick' gambit, right?

     Frankly I have not ignored your suggestion but have not had time or 
energy to
attend to it with the dispatch it deserves.
>
> And you think instead telling me how thankful you are is a relevant reply?
     No I think though that it is acknowledgement of your key role in 
maintaining
communications with the member of our and other users groups.
>
>
> The other thing is:  You might wonder why the SF-LUG mailing list
> administrator hadn't gotten around to noticing your twice-attempted
> oversized posting in the Mailman administrative queue.  As it happens,
> _so do I_.
>
> ('Eh?', I imagine hearing you say.  I will explain, then.)
>
> When I agreed to help SF-LUG out in 2005 by giving it temporary hosting
> on my server's Mailman installtion, I stressed to Jim Stockford that
> SF-LUG itself needed to handle listadmin matters, not me.  I had and
> have quite enough on my plate.  Since I was coordinating this with Jim,
> I said that by default he was elected.  Jim wrote a lot of words about
> how he didn't consider himself a 'leader' of SF-LUG, but I said, 'Gosh,
> sorry but that doesn't change the fact that a mailing list needs a
> listadmin, and you so far are the Head Cheese whether you like it or
> not, so, unless you find some other credible person to be listadmin
> you're it.

     Jim was out of town this weekend.
>
> So, that's what we went with, but, repeatedly over the past 14 years,
> it turned out that Jim has consistently ust not done that job.  I
> kept having problems escalated to me that the listadmin should have
> noticed and addressed, but Jim kept saying he had no knowledge, which
> means he was either ignoring Mailman's notices or he / his ISP / his
> software was blocking the notices.
>
> Therefore, with a small sigh, I added my address to Jim's on the
> listadmin roster -- so that the mailing list would not be completely
> rudderless.
>
> I hadn't yet gotten around to looking at the SF-LUG mailing list admin
> queue -- and you _could_ have escalated to the guy who's _supposed_ to be
> the listadmin (Jim Stockford) but hasn't bothered to do the job at any
> time (AFAIK) over the past 14 years.  But instead you escalated to me,
> the guy who was _not_ supposed to need to have that job.  Et voila.
>
         I might have asked Jim but he was away untll some time on 
Monday evening
I presume.   In the future I will try to keep from assuming that the 
most knowledgeable
person about the list is the one to approach with my trifling problems.

     bliss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20190604/2bbebb7e/attachment-0001.html>