Why can you lusers not quote properly? Your mailtoys totally fuck up
threading in decent MUAs and also destroy archives. I manually
re-formatted your mail to make it readable. READ
http://learn.to/edit_messages, *PLEASE*. Also note that I am subscribed
to this list. *Do* *not* *Cc* *me*.
* dan. kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010501 16:06]:
> On Tue, 01 May 2001, denis wrote:
> > Jeremy Suo-Anttila wrote:
> > > dan.kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > On Tue, 01 May 2001, Brett Randall wrote:
> > > > >"Charles" == Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > A note to potential qmail newbies: we'll help you. [...]
> > > > > Why isn't this type of message in the qmail-subscribe
> > > > > auto-generated reply? [...] Of course, one could also point out
> > > > > that having the list message-moderated with a couple of good
> > > > > moderators in a couple of opposing timezones would significantly
> > > > > increase the signal to noise ratio.
> > > > or how about breaking up the list to qmail-newbiesand
> > > > qmail-arch, or somthing similar? i know this has been suggested
> > > > before.
> > > if you break it up then the newbies will just post to both lists.
> > Alas, so very true....
> right, but then you could moderate the qmail-arch list, and leave the
> qmail-newbies list open. (i'm cribbing of the freebsd lists; the
> freebsd-arch list gets virtually no static, near as i can tell).
Why leave the list open? There is a USENET newsgroup if you think you
need to allow lusers to ask FAQs in technical forums. Moderated lists
are usually good lists. Unmoderated lists are an invitation to lusers
with MS Outlook to break them. QED. The qmail documentation available is
better than for any other MTA I know. Dave Sill's LWQ is just great. Why
bother with people to lazy/stupid/ignorant to read it? Can you name just
one good reason (other than some pseudo-liberal "equal opportunities" BS)?
--
Robin S. Socha
http://my.gnus.org/ - To boldly frobnicate what no newbie has grokked before.
