Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> Hello all (especially List Admin?!),
>
> I must give some context for the following comment:
>
>> On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:41 AM, Kieren MacMillan
>> <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion forward…?
>
> Going to the list archive, I now see that there were many, many posts
> on this thread (which I still have to go through)… but I’ve received
> basically none of them (the exceptions being two of Jean’s that have
> gotten to me somehow).
>
> I’m not sure exactly where there problem lies, though I do know that
> it’s not a spam filter with my ISP or my personal computer. If someone
> could help me resolve this, I’d appreciate it.
You probably have your list settings set to "avoid receiving duplicate
posts" so you don't get any mails sent to the list server for which you
are already listed in the recipients (as "reply to all" will do).
At the same time, your mail server at sympatico.ca rejects almost any
mail it receives, so the list server's assumption that you'll get a
personal copy anyway is mistaken.
Here is a typical such rejection mail:
From: Mail Delivery System <mailer-dae...@gnu.org>
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
To: d...@gnu.org
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:26:36 -0500 (8 hours, 42 minutes, 22 seconds ago)
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca
host mxmta.owm.bell.net [209.71.208.7]
SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
421 Connection limit reached. Please try again later:
retry timeout exceeded
Reporting-MTA: dns; eggs.gnu.org
Action: failed
Final-Recipient: rfc822;kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca
Status: 5.0.0
Remote-MTA: dns; mxmta.owm.bell.net
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 421 Connection limit reached. Please try again later:
retry timeout exceeded
From: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
To: Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>
Cc: LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>, Dan Eble <dan@lyric.works>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:26:32 +0100 (8 hours, 42 minutes, 26 seconds ago)
Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion forward…?
>
> Assuming I’m not:
>
> 1. In *my* mind, the optimal situation *from the user/UI perspective*
> would be to have a single public interface
>
> \time BLAH FOO BAR etc.
>
> which would gracefully and transparently handle all possible time
> signature demands: simple and compound sigs, all possible
> “denominator” representations, beat structures, etc. My first question
> in this regard: Am I wrong [from the user/UI perspective]? I totally
> get that it may be unadvisable from the programmers’ perspective (and
> for sure from backwards-compatibility perspective, etc.) — my question
> here is more one of Lilypond programming philosophy.
Personally, I don't see how making it hard for the computer to figure
out what of a myriad of variants in meaning is intended makes it
reasonable for the user to see what is intended.
It's not like I haven't voiced that opinion before, so I have no idea
how I could contribute towards you considering this question resolved.
--
David Kastrup
----------
So if you are interested in actually receiving replies from people, it
would be a good idea to disable the "don't send duplicates" setting in
the list server (the mail headers of every mail from the list contain
instructions how to get help about the list commands from the list
server; you might need to use some "view all headers" or similar option
in your mail client to see them) as a first step. The second step would
be to figure out why your mail server chooses to reject all those
mails. Once you get that fixed (and reliably receive duplicates from
all those people who use "reply to all"), you might think of disabling
reception of duplicates again.
I intentionally removed you from the recipients of the mail now because
otherwise the mail would get rejected anyway without you being the
wiser. Maybe the list server is luckier in getting mail delivered to
you.
In the long run, you really want to get this problem fixed.
--
David Kastrup
