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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):

> 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.

This is not a complaint, but I'll just note in passing that I asked what
mailing list this is, and you blew off the question.  If you'd asked me
a similar question, and I didn't care to answer it, I'd have said 'I
actually don't care to say.'

> Frankly I have not ignored your suggestion but have not had time or
> energy to attend to it with the dispatch it deserves.

You had the time and energy to send the photo to some unrelated mailing
list, but lacked time and energy to even acknowledge my suggestion?  I see.
_My_ time and energy you spend freely.  Hmm.

> Jim was out of town this weekend.

The great thing about sending the (alleged) listadmin an inquiry is that
it'll still be there when he's back in town.  Also, it's not unknown for
_some_ people to occasionally read e-mail even when out of town.  It
could happen.

> 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.

Maybe in future you should take listadmin problems first to the
listadmin.  (Admittedly, this listadmin's played hookey for 14 years, but
it's the principle of the thing.)

Also in the future, you might suspect that in a world with 40 kilobyte
default per-message size limits on mailing lists, maybe your trying to 
lob a 200 kilobyte photo at one _might_ be the reason your oversigzed
posting hasn't gone through a few hours later -- especially if, as in
this case, it's the first time you've tried to send binary attachments
to that mailing list at all.

Meantime, no, that 'most knowledgable' thing isn't reasonable.  What's
reasonable is stopping to think, and then maybe take listadmin problems
first to the listadmin.

I need to get back to my own tasks, but there's another thing:  First Jim
and now you have (on different occasions) come to me with a claim
there's something wrong with my mail system -- so I've rushed to
investigate because I appreciate linuxmafia.com having a good reputation
as a clean, reliable mail system.  Jim made vague claims that my system
was sending him spam.  I found no foundation to this, and suspect it
was a goofy misinterpretation of notices of held mail Mailman sends him
as listadmin -- the job he's supposed to be doing but hasn't done for 14
years running.  (Inevitably, most mail that lodges in the admin queue is
spam held because it's from non-subscribed addresses, so the notices
are unavoidably a little spammy.)  You, recently, said 'mail isn't
getting through' (not bothering to even cite timestamp data until I
asked).  Again, if true, this would be a blemish on my system's good
reputation.

So, basically, there we have instances of where you and Jim motivated me
to immediately investigate what were (in truth) bullshit complaints by
(in effect) alleging bad system operation.

My point?  The quickest way to make that stop would be to disinvite you
guys.  Just sayin'.